Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Has the 'Pro-Life' Movement Won?

Rate this topic


Boydstun
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Grames said:

image.jpeg.dca5ddee7bbc5605f1f8974f10785490.jpeg

Abortion would be a less controversial issue if few cared about it.  If only the 7.7% abortions with valid reasons took place there would a lot less people paying attention to the issue.

Does "No reason (elective)" mean that none of the other reasons apply, or that the reason was not stated in a way that showed up in the data?  Even if the former, we still must respect the 7.7%, and we still must protect the rights of the 100%.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/2/2022 at 4:07 PM, Grames said:

"Avoiding the consequence" here is actually the mental evasion before the sex happened.  A series of range-of-the-moment reactions is no way to go through life.

A series of range-of-the-moment reactions is no way to go through life. Agreed.

If a potential child was not a part of the issue, let us say the person injects drugs, or even experimental drugs out of desperation, one would say, they have a right to do what they want with their body (as long as it does not harm another). In that case, the range of the moment aspect is not as important, right?

So the argument around abortion has to center around the potential child. In other words, right or wrong, what's done is done, conception has happened. The question is what is the obligation of the parties involved and why.

If the argument is that the parents were sluts, and therefore they should be forced to protect the child's birth, it should be spelled out as such so that it can be discussed. But is that the gist of the argument? Or is it that the parents should be punished for what they have done?

Let us say, it was a slut that made a mistake. Something they regret. What is the principle mandating the birth of the child?

Edited by Easy Truth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

Let us say, it was a slut that made a mistake. Something they regret. What is the principle mandating the birth of the child?

It would have to be that the unborn can use the woman's body by Right to remain in existence.  That changes the meaning of what a Right is from "a sanction to independent action" to "a sanction to full physical dependency".   I never understood the claim that because a woman brought the ZEF into existence she has a legal obligation to give birth.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Do ZEF producers have a moral obligation ?

More like they have a moral Right to keep or use or dispose of the ZEF as if it were their property although, technically, it isn't really property but it is a part of her body and her body does belong to her.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Craig24 said:

It would have to be that the unborn can use the woman's body by Right to remain in existence.  That changes the meaning of what a Right is from "a sanction to independent action" to "a sanction to full physical dependency".   I never understood the claim that because a woman brought the ZEF into existence she has a legal obligation to give birth.  

Then can we not start with the ZEF yet. (whatever that stands for)

How about should a woman who gave birth to a child have a legal obligation to help it survive (assuming she does not want to)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Boydstun said:

I didn't pay for the article , do they explore or comment on a derived ability to attribute or treat a non self conscious entity as a rights bearing entity if the possibility of the enity's nature is such that it will attain such a status as rights imbued ?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Legal obligations toward caring for one's offspring are man-made , yes ? Just like legal obligations to not commit murder , yes ?

Yes and No.

Man made, yes always ... but that is descriptively speaking.

The question is what should be?

The reason murder should be illegal is a selfish one ... I don't want to be murdered.

That is a requirement for my living i.e. survival qua man.

In fact it would be a universal desire for "those who want to live".

In the case of a child, it is the desire of those who want to bring it up that seems to be paramount. It is they that will hurt if the child is left to die. 

1 hour ago, Craig24 said:

It would have to be that the unborn can use the woman's body by Right to remain in existence.

To say that another way, the premise would be that the unborn should be able to use the woman's body by right to remain in existence.

Let us consider the following: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life. Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.) 

That would imply that rights don't apply to a child that is not rational and can't self sustain.

Therefore, it may be the right of those that in a sense "own" the child. Is it the mother (that does not want it) or those people that are willing to bring it up. One could make the argument that a neighbor torturing their child will "hurt" you. But what are your rights, the parent's rights, or the child's rights in this picture?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

How about should a woman who gave birth to a child have a legal obligation to help it survive (assuming she does not want to)?

Only the pregnant woman can give birth.  Pregnancy can't be transferred to someone else.  

Parental obligations can be transferred.  Anyone can take care of a baby.  And Boydstun's link from an earlier post seems to show that there's never a shortage of willing adoptive parents.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Easy Truth said:

...

If the argument is that the parents were sluts, and therefore they should be forced to protect the child's birth, it should be spelled out as such so that it can be discussed. But is that the gist of the argument? Or is it that the parents should be punished for what they have done?

Let us say, it was a slut that made a mistake. Something they regret. What is the principle mandating the birth of the child?

There is no such principle, I am not myself anti-abortion.  Ridicule of sluts is the only measure I advocate against self-righteous sluts.  I also have no heartache over seeing states block elective abortions in the last trimester.  The earlier the abortion, the better.  "Safe , legal and rare" was a good catchphrase for abortion policy goals back in the Clinton years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Grames said:

I also have no heartache over seeing states block elective abortions in the last trimester.

Me too, but I can only find an emotional response on my part. I can't back it up with a principle. It makes me cringe to see a baby looking thing pulled out like that. Nevertheless, I can't simply propose or support laws based on how it feels to me and that is my quandary.

The only unemotional reason I can find is perhaps rules that help propagate a species. One problem with that is that it would attack homosexuality too. But there is also no inherent value in one's species. Or is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is the earlier the better ? I admit I feel certain level of ‘heinous-ness’ becomes attached to my emotional estimation of contemplating a post viability abortion , as I believe most ‘rational’ people would admit also.

I’m not against the gist of ‘safe, legal, and rare’ , and I’d rather or hope that safe chemical interventions eg a morning after pill , are actually safe and widely available . Zygoticide is something ‘permissible ‘ in the context of what I gathered from the abstract in the link to the article Stephen posted.

But advocating for things such as partial birth abortions , when not in a medical emergency situation is not a position I would hold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

But advocating for things such as partial birth abortions , when not in a medical emergency situation is not a position I would hold.

Unless you say why, the solution is based on democratic means, meaning we get everyone's votes and that is what we will go by.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, tadmjones said:

I didn't pay for the article , do they explore or comment on a derived ability to attribute or treat a non self conscious entity as a rights bearing entity if the possibility of the enity's nature is such that it will attain such a status as rights imbued ?

Tad, try clicking on these at JSTOR: 

Tooley

Tushnet and Seidman

See how much you get. I think they allow some free downloads initially. I pay an annual fee for them.

I read the Tooley paper decades ago. I don't know what I'd think of it today or what I'd think of the Note following up on it. I can't dig into these serious papers of philosophy and law in this area at this time because I need every hour for other philosophy work in areas very far from this for the next few months. If you can't get the papers and want them, let me know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Easy Truth said:

Unless you say why, the solution is based on democratic means, meaning we get everyone's votes and that is what we will go by.

That is how it is ‘supposed to work’ , no ?

The people vote for the representatives that fashion the laws based on what the people desire to have as laws and those laws are then ultimately tested against the constitution that defines the principles upon which the law gains its legitimacy,  no ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

That is how it is ‘supposed to work’ , no ?

The people vote for the representatives that fashion the laws based on what the people desire to have as laws and those laws are then ultimately tested against the constitution that defines the principles upon which the law gains its legitimacy,  no ?

Again Tad, you're describing it. Don't we have to make the case of why it should be this way?

Are you arguing that it is unanswerable objectively therefore the vote is all we have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/5/2022 at 11:36 PM, Grames said:

However a good heuristic for whether or not one should have sex with someone is if a pregnancy would be completely unacceptable then don't have the sex.  

If you are not antiabortion, then what is your point? So like I said, your point seems to be that antiabortion laws are inconvenient, but not a big deal and not a profound violation of rights. 

Also, when I read this, are you implying that people who don't want kids ever should never have sex?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Eiuol said:

If you are not antiabortion, then what is your point?

Don't have sex with strangers.  Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others.  Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness.  Don't rely on abortion as contraception.   These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grames said:

Don't have sex with strangers.  Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others.  Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness.  Don't rely on abortion as contraception.   These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.

Great, you promote safe sex. Sometimes those things don't necessarily work. Nothing really interesting or profound here. Sounds like you're trying to be controversial when what you're really saying is abortion shouldn't be your main means of contraception. If you think that having an abortion is a sign that someone is sleeping around indiscriminately, that really has nothing to do with it. Having sex with the same person 50 times does not make you less likely to get pregnant compared to having sex with 50 different people. Mostly it is a sign of failed contraception. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/7/2022 at 7:13 PM, Easy Truth said:

Me too, but I can only find an emotional response on my part. I can't back it up with a principle. It makes me cringe to see a baby looking thing pulled out like that. Nevertheless, I can't simply propose or support laws based on how it feels to me and that is my quandary. ...

 

On 7/7/2022 at 7:21 PM, tadmjones said:

Why is the earlier the better ? ...

Given Rand's theory of concepts and Peikoff's speculation that induction is concept-formation in action then an explanation is available.  The gradual growth and maturation of a single fertilized ovum to a born infant that is recognizably human with arms and legs, fingers and toes, a face and blood, breath and brain is similar to the "problem of the beard" that I described earlier this thread, or a version of the "ship of Theseus".  At a certain point some internal epistemological threshold is crossed and a moment of recognition or induction occurs and the identification is made "that's a person".  I don't think this under one's voluntary control.  (Gathering evidence is under one's control but not the threshold of enough evidence.)

Earlier abortions are better because the less recognizably human the fetus is then the less likely it would be automatically identified as a person by the woman involved, or the father or the care providers.

Then there is the issue of differing levels of knowledge and context.  There is the naïve or layperson perspective and then there is the scientifically and philosophically informed perspective.  The layperson will typically have an unidentified premise of an ontological substance theory, that whatever makes up a person an infant has it and so must the fetus 5 minutes or 5 weeks before birth.  A more informed perspective that has identified human consciousness as man's distinctive attribute and further that consciousness is a relation not an intrinsic attribute will understand the full significance of the moment of birth, that human consciousness only begins at the moment of emergence into the world.  To the naïve perspective the informed perspective can seem just a cold-blooded and hard-hearted rationalization using those tricksy words.  The bad news is that everyone has a subconscious mind that makes naïve automatized emotional associations, it is the default understanding of the world (hence "naïve").   

So which perspective should write the law governing abortions?  Should the mass of laypersons be ruled over by a law they do not understand and so cannot value?  Should the mass of laypersons be sent to abortion re-education camps so they can learn to think correctly?  Should we fight a war over abortion rights for the sake of uniformity in the name of the universality of rights or let people sort themselves out state by state?

The only way forward is education, a task which never can end as every new infant is born ignorant of everything.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...