Thanks for looking that up, Richard_Halley! I now have a faint recollection of reading that. I’ll have to revisit the topic.
I lend you a thousand dollars, which you promise to pay back next month. This means that next month you will have an obligation to pay me a thousand dollars. Does that constitute an abrogation of your rights?
Why not?
Because that’s a contractual agreement.
Does that mean that you would say that sex leading to conception is an 18 year 9 month contractual agreement between mother and child where she lends her body, work, and money?
Or are you just saying that if you birth the child THEN you’re obliged to care for it?
I’m assuming you mean the latter due to the later citations presented. I’m just looking for clarification of what we’re accepting as true at this point. I’m not posing an argument here.
This is why I’m not trying to get any babies right now. I’m impressed by all the issues associated with child-rearing and amazed that so many undertake it so casually.
Or are you just saying that if you birth the child THEN you’re obliged to care for it?
Yes, I would agree with that. The choice to have a child brings worth a helpless individual into the world – making him your responsibility until he is capable of fending for himself. I think the moral obligation of have a child is roughly analogous to incapacitating an adult individual – in that case, you would also be responsible for supporting him until he is able to return to work. In neither case are you required to personally provide that care – hence it is acceptable to give children up for adoption, even if it is irresponsible.
As I already mentioned, the right to an abortion is a very important element in child bearing being a choice. Personally, I am careful about getting into a relationship with a woman who categorically rejects abortion, since I may end up being (morally and legally) responsible for a child – something I don’t want to do for a long time. Prior to the age of birth control and abortions, many people had their dreams were ruined by such “accidents.”
To clarify, it is not merely giving birth, but choosing to give birth that qualifys you to this responsibility. So if abortions are banned than you would not have a moral responsibility to take care of the child (though you may choose to anyway).
As for this:
In neither case are you required to personally provide that care – hence it is acceptable to give children up for adoption, even if it is irresponsible.
You are not required to personally provide that care, but you are responible for its quality. So giving a child to a trusted individual or an adoption agency with trustworthy guidelines would be moral. However, giving him to a stranger or an untrusted agency would not.
Does this make sense?
So if abortions are banned than you would not have a moral responsibility to take care of the child (though you may choose to anyway).
I disagree. Both parents are responsible for providing for their child even if it was unwanted and both abortions and birth control is illegal. However unjustly their choice was restricted, it is still a choice – and thus carries the corresponding responsibility. Rape is the only case in which a woman would not be responsible for raising her child.
I will accept that arguement on one condition. This is not the case if they ceased sexual relations when the ban came into effect. If they concieved the child before the ban there is no way it can be referred to as a choice.
I disagree. Both parents are responsible for providing for their child even if it was unwanted and both abortions and birth control is illegal. However unjustly their choice was restricted, it is still a choice ? and thus carries the corresponding responsibility. Rape is the only case in which a woman would not be responsible for raising her child.
Do you believe that the father of the child should have the right to abandon the mother and the pregancy within the first 3 months or whatever (ie during the same period as the mother may have an abortion)? It seems a bit unfair that a woman is allowed to stab her child in the head repeatedlly should she desire to not look after it, whereas a man is forced to ruin his life by taking care (financially or otherwise) of a child he does not want.
I wouldnt say that the state has the right to force either mother or father to care for a child at any point, whether it’s in the womb or otherwise. To force a person to support another in this manner is nothing less than a form of slavery, and one which I certainly oppose.
He means that only a sick and twisted individual would want to get an abortion very late in the game, even it if is not murder. The great majority of abortions occur in the first trimester, and the status of a fetus is very clear there.
Why? Circumstances change; there may be new factors that have arisen that would make continuing the pregancy very detrimental to the mother’s happyness (new career opportunities/heath reasons/whatever). In this case, what is morally wrong with her choosing to end the pregnancy?
…It seems a bit unfair that a woman is allowed to stab her child in the head repeatedlly should she desire to not look after it…
These kinds of emotionalistic mischaracterizations have no place in a rational discussion. Your word choices (“stab,” “child”) are obviously intended to imply that abortion is murder, but without the bother of actually making an argument for that conclusion. Consider this a warning.
I will answer your questions, poohat, but don’t make Ash yell at you again.
Should the mother decide to have the child and the father dosen’t want to, he may certianally leave. Than the mother may decide if she wants to have the child without him. I have an exception, if a man got involved with a woman who was opposed to abortion outright, and she got pregnant, morally, he would have to take care of the child. My reasoning here is that he made his choice to have a child when he got involved sexually with her.
And as for late term abortions. Should the need arise for the parents to abort late, there is nothing morally wrong with that. This usually happens because of threats to the mothers physical health, but I can imagine other reasons for this kind of decision.
However, should it be found that a fetus develops a rational faculty while still inside the womb, than there is to be discussion about when precisely it becomes a person. I say discussion because there are other factors to consider, such as the fetus/persons parasitical nature.
These kinds of emotionalistic mischaracterizations have no place in a rational discussion. Your word choices (“stab,” “child”) are obviously intended to imply that abortion is murder, but without the bother of actually making an argument for that conclusion. Consider this a warning.
It was a turn of phrase (as well as a description of reality, but we can use different-but-semantically-identical words if you want I suppose). Why would I claim that abortion is murder when the second part of my post made it clear that I had no problem with abortion?
Should the mother decide to have the child and the father dosen’t want to, he may certianally leave
Ok, thats fair enough. My main grief here is with the current system, in which a man is forcd to care for a child he does not want, while a woman has the option of terminating the pregnancy.
I have an exception, if a man got involved with a woman who was opposed to abortion outright, and she got pregnant, morally, he would have to take care of the child. My reasoning here is that he made his choice to have a child when he got involved sexually with her.
Seems to be a dangerous argument. If you can say that a man has ‘made his choice’ to have a child simply by being with a women who opposes abortion, couldnt you also say that a woman has made her choice to have a child by engaging in a sexual act, and use this as an argument against abortion?
However, should it be found that a fetus develops a rational faculty while still inside the womb, than there is to be discussion about when precisely it becomes a person. I say discussion because there are other factors to consider, such as the fetus/persons parasitical nature.
When you choose to call it a person is purely a linguistic matter and has no real bearing on reality. I’m not sure why evidence that a foetus is conscious would change anything though, since I was under the impression that the primary argument for abortion here was the desire to avoid forcing slavery upon the mother.
When you choose to call it a person is purely a linguistic matter and has no real bearing on reality. I’m not sure why evidence that a foetus is conscious would change anything though, since I was under the impression that the primary argument for abortion here was the desire to avoid forcing slavery upon the mother.
It is only a purely linguistic matter if you apply no definition to the word “person”. I said there would be a discussion about the morality, not that this evidence would be reason to reject abortion outright. And I did not say anything about conciousness, I said “rational faculty.”
Seems to be a dangerous argument. If you can say that a man has ‘made his choice’ to have a child simply by being with a women who opposes abortion, couldnt you also say that a woman has made her choice to have a child by engaging in a sexual act, and use this as an argument against abortion?
No. A pregnant woman has a right to kill any clump of cells growing on her she desires. The only time it is even arguable that this is not the case is when that clump of cells has a rational faculty.
However, in deciding on having sexual relations with a woman who is clear in their refusal to abort, a man is telling that woman that you support that decision, and thus, it would be immoral to leave her for sticking to it.
It is only a purely linguistic matter if you apply no definition to the word “person”. I said there would be a discussion about the morality, not that this evidence would be reason to reject abortion outright. And I did not say anything about conciousness, I said “rational faculty.”
Well it doesnt really matter what definition you apply to the word person - the foetus is whatever it is, regardless of whether you call it a person, non-person, baby, foetus or fish. I agree that the knowledge that a foetus is rational might provoke debate around some arguments favouring abortion, but I dont think it would be relevant to the standard Objectivist position (see below). On a sidenote, I’d argue that possession of a rational faculty presupposes consciousness, but thats tangential.
No. A pregnant woman has a right to kill any clump of cells growing on her she desires. The only time it is even arguable that this is not the case is when that clump of cells has a rational faculty.
This seems a strange distinction to make - a conscious/rational clump of cells is still a clump of cells. My argument was presupposing the ‘standard’ Objectivist position that the abortion issue ultimately reduced to one of slavery. Under these circumstances, it would be a matter of complete indifference whether the foetus was rational/conscious/'a child/whatever, since it would still be dependent on the mother against her will.
No. A pregnant woman has a right to kill any clump of cells growing on her she desires. The only time it is even arguable that this is not the case is when that clump of cells has a rational faculty.
What if he had told her in advance that he has no desire for a child and wouldnt support one should she get pregnant? Since he knows her position on abortion, it is likely that she would know his also.
Well it doesnt really matter what definition you apply to the word person - the foetus is whatever it is, regardless of whether you call it a person, non-person, baby, foetus or fish.
Are you arguing against defining words altogether? If the fetus qualifys as a person (by Rand’s definiton of the word, to be specific), it gains certian rights and considerations under a rational moral code. If it ever qualifys as a person (since it is a parasite) is debatable.
On a sidenote, I’d argue that possession of a rational faculty presupposes consciousness, but thats tangential.
Yes, but this does not mean that conciousness presupposes rationality. So while a fetus may be concious, this is irrellivent unless it is rational (i.e. concept forming).
This seems a strange distinction to make - a conscious/rational clump of cells is still a clump of cells.
Yes, so long as it does not qualify as a person.
My argument was presupposing the ‘standard’ Objectivist position that the abortion issue ultimately reduced to one of slavery. Under these circumstances, it would be a matter of complete indifference whether the foetus was rational/conscious/'a child/whatever, since it would still be dependent on the mother against her will.
It is not slavery if it is a decision or contract, see previous posts for more on this. It seems to me that your arguement comes down to an attempt to refute any personal/moral resposibility for creating a person.
What if he had told her in advance that he has no desire for a child and wouldnt support one should she get pregnant? Since he knows her position on abortion, it is likely that she would know his also.
This is a tough issue, and it is one that I am going to dismiss as irrellivent. Why is this Objectivist having sex with a woman with no value for her own life anyway?
I propose to ban anybody who uses the phrase We’re just arguing semantics or anything akin to it.
Capitalism’s stance on abortion is purely rational and I totally agree with it.
It is based upon the rational “life begins at birth,” versus “life begins at conception” which is, in my opinion, a mysticist view.
If life can be unequivocally proven to begin at conception, then my birth certificate is all wrong. I was really born when sperm met egg. I had no definition as an individual yet Bush and company want to endow me with individual rights. I can’t even so much as experience emotion, yet I am protected as a pre-fetal being with the same rights as my mother, who really needs the protection of her rights by the government.
The arguments of the anti-abortion crowd are ludicrous at best, absurd at worst.
No one has yet proven that real life begins at conception.
Hi:
I have read through all the posts and find the arguements for and against abortion are very interesting.
If I may add. Responsibility (not duty) was not mentioned much in this discussion.
Knowing that having sex may lead to pregnancy, people chose to have unprotected sex. That is a conscious choice.
Rand have stated " The obligation to keep one’s promise is one of the most important elements in proper human relationships, the element that leads to mutual confidence and makes cooperation possible among men…
The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it by surrending to what they believe is easy, automatic, unthinking safety of a morality of “duty.” They learn better, often when it is too late." Causality Versus Duty
So, a pregnant woman (and the man who participated in the process) decided to have an abortion would abandon moral discipline, surrending to that which is easy, automatic, unthinking… Rand supported abortion but would she consider those have abortions to be escaping from their responsibility?
Q
If I put a new light bulb in my lamp, but don’t turn on the switch, am I escaping from my responsiblity. No, not unless I had promised someone that the lamp would be turned on. The fact that I have made something possible and decide not to take advantage of that possibility does not make me irresponsible.
If I put a new light bulb in my lamp, but don’t turn on the switch, am I escaping from my responsiblity. No, not unless I had promised someone that the lamp would be turned on. The fact that I have made something possible and decide not to take advantage of that possibility does not make me irresponsible.
I do not think after I deposit my sperms into a woman there would be a switch. OR there is one that I do not know about?
Q