The foetus has no means of demanding that anyway, so how are we to kn ow its demands? We cannot act on the demands of a being that cannot communicate. Besides it has no means of formulating any demands. That, Aureus, is a part of why baby’s have no rights.
Yeap, but I didnt think that needed pointing out as last I checked we (Aureus included I hope) realize that 
I second Stephen’s comments. It’s not opposition to the right to abortion as such that conflicts with Objectivism, but the reasons one would have for doing so. Sooner or later, as one’s knowledge developed, one would reach the point where one would have to choose between the principle of individual rights, and one’s opposition to abortion rights. If one chose the latter, one would no longer be an Objectivist; if one chose the former, one would no longer oppose the right to abortion.
The fact is, a correct grasp of the facts that give rise to man’s rights cannot lead one to conclude that something inside of and attached to a human being has rights. Rights deal with the interaction of individuals. There is no interaction of individuals before birth - there can’t be.
I like the way Peikoff puts it:
“Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals - no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man - and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically seperate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host” (OPAR 357).
If you include under the concept “man” non-individuals, biological dependencies, or potential human beings growing inside the body of actual human beings, what is left of individualism? Or of egoism? And, what therefore, is left of Objectivism?
What exactly is the definition of “human” in this context? Is it purely a matter of physical connection to the mother? Does cognitive ability come into play somehow? Peikoff mentions the idea of a fetus being a parasite that lives off its host, but I’m not sure that’s really relevant as far as its rights are concerned. It’s not as though the fetus came to that point of its own free will- it was the direct action of the mother (except I suppose in the case of rape, though even that might not fundamentally change the issue) that brought the fetus into being in its dependent state. In fact, isn’t that oneof the reasons why parents are obligated to provide for their children- because children start out unable to fend for themselves, and it is the parents who brought them to that point? It seems like in both cases a dependency is present, and I don’t see why a physical attatchment would be the fundamental moral libe. It seems to me that in order to be considered “human”, and therefore possessing of the right to life, a festus need only demonstarte some higher order brain function associated soley with humans- that is, some aspect of rational thought. I admit, I don’t know how well scientists can determine that kind of activity, if at all, but philosophically speaking, that seems like the only relevant consideration in determining whether or not this “clump of cells” can be said to have rights.
The foetus has no means of demanding that anyway, so how are we to kn ow its demands? We cannot act on the demands of a being that cannot communicate. Besides it has no means of formulating any demands. That, Aureus, is a part of why baby’s have no rights.
Yeah, I am going to go with a=a on this one. The fact that someone cannot communicate, is not by itself a part of the reasons someone has no rights, though I assume you do not mean to imply it is. Sure it cannot communicate, and it has no rights, but both are ultimately because it has not got a proper working mind and so forth…
I do not disagree with your conclusion, but it seems that the fetus’ lack of communication is poor grounds for the denial of rights. Otherwise, infants, people in coma’s, mentally disabled, sleeping folks, etc all could have their right to life denied. I would suggest other approaches.
I never said the lack of ability to communicate was the reason. I said the lack of ability to have any demands is. Hence my, “Besides it has no means of formulating any demands.”
Yeah, I am going to go with a=a on this one. The fact that someone cannot communicate, is not by itself a part of the reasons someone has no rights, though I assume you do not mean to imply it is. Sure it cannot communicate, and it has no rights, but both are ultimately because it has not got a proper working mind and so forth…
I know the mind bit, hence the, “Besides it has no means of formulating any demands.” My response to the res is the same as what I said to aequalsa.
EDIT: I added a reply to Prometheus98876.
Anything that one says on this topic is probably a repetition of that arguments already in those threads to which I linked, above. Nevertheless…
What exactly is the definition of “human” in this context? Is it purely a matter of physical connection to the mother?
You’re right, that the pure fact of a connection is not all there is to it. We’d might need to modify the idea of rights, and add in some special obligations, if fully-grown humans were routinely bodily-attached to each other. Other factors go into drawing the legal “line”. Personally, I think separation is the best point at which to draw it.
Anything that one says on this topic is probably a repetition of that arguments already in those threads to which I linked, above. Nevertheless…You’re right, that the pure fact of a connection is not all there is to it. We’d might need to modify the idea of rights, and add in some special obligations, if fully-grown humans were routinely bodily-attached to each other. Other factors go into drawing the legal “line”. Personally, I think separation is the best point at which to draw it.
But why separation rather than cognition? What’s the basis for attaching any significance at all to attachment? Or more clearly, what’s the reason to consider any factor beyond brain activity? I would disagree with the assumption that a fetus cannot formulate desires before the umbilical chord is cut. But again, my scientific backing on this is unsure at best- does anyone know of real evidence that no “human” perception and integration takes place before the umbilical chord is cut? That seems like a pretty big assumption to me, and if in fact it’s not true, then both the questions of separation and the ability to communicate desires are nonissues.
From my experience, newborn humans are pretty similar (and actually less competent) than other newborn mammals. Many of them have to be coaxed even to suckle! I’m not saying that one may not logically draw the legal line before separation. However, if anyone wants to do so, the onus of proof is clearly on them.
But why separation rather than cognition? What’s the basis for attaching any significance at all to attachment? Or more clearly, what’s the reason to consider any factor beyond brain activity? I would disagree with the assumption that a fetus cannot formulate desires before the umbilical chord is cut. But again, my scientific backing on this is unsure at best- does anyone know of real evidence that no “human” perception and integration takes place before the umbilical chord is cut? That seems like a pretty big assumption to me, and if in fact it’s not true, then both the questions of separation and the ability to communicate desires are nonissues.
I think given how rudimentary the mental abilities of a baby is, ie not being able to find out where the milk is, and the fact its sensory facility is initially more limited, that we should be asking for proof that the baby can perceive properly and integrate even just after birth let along before it.
I’m not saying that one may not logically draw the legal line before separation. However, if anyone wants to do so, the onus of proof is clearly on them.
Really? What we’re talking about here is the potential execution of a human, and if we accept that cognitive ability is the determining factor, then I think an “innocent until proven guilty” attitude is more reasonable. That is, unless we have evidence to suggest that a fetus doesn’t have any such abilities at a given point of development, then we probably shouldn’t be killing it. So, the question becomes, what are you willing to consider as human cognitive ability? I think their disorientation or lack of initiative (as in the suckling example) are pretty irrelevant- but I wonder if it’s possible to examine brain waves of human and non-human organisms and to pinpoint certain kinds of brain activity that are specifiically “human”. Either way, this quesiton of onus of proof seems a bit off- if the line you’re drawing is arbitrary (and I don’t see why relying to an infant’s feeding abilities as a determining factor is any more sensical than it’s size or its eye color), then why would the onus of proof be on one line and not another? We know that the embryo will at some point develop abilities solely human, whether that’s at age 1 or week 30 after conception, and assuming we don’t know when exactly it happens, it seems much more sensical to demand that someone prove that those abilities don’t exist than the opposite. Is it different somehow than demanding conclusive proof to condemn a man to death, rather than relying on a lack of proved innocence?
I’m pretty sure this ground has been covered before. Check out those previous threads.
I remember a couple of weeks ago I reaised the question of how easy it was to distinguish between what is “essential” to Objectivist philosophy and what is not. I was described as an “annoying” troublemaker for pressing the issue, and most people gave me pat responses that basically amounted to saying it would of course be obvious. I think this issue indicates that it is NOT in fact obvious.
Moreover, the poll is flawed because it needs a third option.
“Yes I believe that a pro-life posiiton is compatible with Objectivism, but I am pro-choice” or…
the Yes answer needs to be reworded to just say
“Yes I believe that a pro-life position is compatible with Objectivism.”
The way the poll is currently worded, it guides the reader to affirm that their own opinion on the issue is in fact the only answer for Objectivism, when the poll is ostensibly designed to answer the question of whether there is such a correct answer.
What we’re talking about here is the potential execution of a human, and if we accept that cognitive ability is the determining factor, then I think an “innocent until proven guilty” attitude is more reasonable.
It is not, because what you are *actually* talking about when you talk about granting rights to a fetus before it is born is *violating the rights of the mother*. ANY attempt to grant rights to a pre-born fetus means *precisely* that you are turning a full-grown adult woman into a *slave*. THIS is why *separation* is the dividing line.
But everyone just worries about the theoretical cognitive ability of the proto-baby, when it’s not of any fundamental importance whatsoever.
It is not, because what you are *actually* talking about when you talk about granting rights to a fetus before it is born is *violating the rights of the mother*. ANY attempt to grant rights to a pre-born fetus means *precisely* that you are turning a full-grown adult woman into a *slave*. THIS is why *separation* is the dividing line.
But everyone just worries about the theoretical cognitive ability of the proto-baby, when it’s not of any fundamental importance whatsoever.
A mother does have an obligation to provide for her infant child, yes? That is because, I assume, the infant has certain rights, given its nature, and because it is in danger as a result of the mother’s actions, the mother is therefore obligated to provide certain things until it is able to fend for itself. So what about the nature of the infant gives it those rights? Is it the fact that it is no longer attached by an umbilical chord? I don’t see how its being a rational entity can be of no importance whatsoever in determing its rights. I assume you wouldn’t call a mother a slave to her infant because of her obligation, but you feel the term is justified when dealing with a fetus. It make ssense to me to say that since an infant’s rights are derived from its rational faculty, however limited that may be, then a fetus’ rights should be determined the in the same way, and not based on the existence of an actual physical connection between mother and offspring. This definitely does not mean that a fetus at any stage should have the same rights as an infant, or any rights at all for that matter, but it does suggest that if a similar rational faculty can be demonstrated at some point of development, then the rights should be similar as well.
I moved the posts about abortion itself (as opposed to the recent SCOTUS decision) to this thread.
There are some longer (and better) threads on abortion. Use Search to find them. The longest is this one.; but there’s also this one, and this one.
I moved the posts about abortion itself (as opposed to the recent SCOTUS decision) to this thread.
There are some longer (and better) threads on abortion. Use Search to find them. The longest is this one.; but there’s also this one, and this one.
I appreciate your guiding us to other references, and I understand that no one wants to rehash old material over and over again, but the threads you provided links to are both really long and generally really multi-faceted. I’m sure there’s lots of interesting stuff, but I’m not sure that wading through 50 pages of it is the best way to answer relatively specific questions. I did look through 10 pages or so, and I didn’t find much of an answer to my primary concern, that being: what determines a fetus’ rights, or lack thereof? Or, more specifically, why would the determing factor be anything other than its rational faculty, or lack thereof? A two-week old baby doesn’t have rights because it’s physically independent of its mother, any more than a twenty-year old does- it has them because it has a rational faculty of some sort. though it’s obviously not fully developed. Or is this not the case? Ar ethe rights of an infant based on something other than rational faculty?
Kevin, I appreciate the problem wading through those long threads. Part of the hassle is that any thread on abortion, or on sex (or on tipping 
) tends soons becomes a 300-post thread in its own right. Hopefully someone will take you up on your particular question.
Personally, I’m willing to take this a step further by asking you to clarify one aspect of your position:
Reading between the lines, I think you’re advocating a line drawn in a place quite different from that drawn by Aureus (a few posts above, within this thread), who wants to protect zygotes. I understand that you think a zygote does not warrant any protection. I don’t even know if “zygote” is the right term, but let me ask it this way: from what you know and have learnt about the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy, do you think there is no question that abortion should be allowed during that very early stage? [Here’s a link with some info on the first trimester.]
Kevin, I appreciate the problem wading through those long threads. Part of the hassle is that any thread on abortion, or on sex (or on tipping
Personally, I’m willing to take this a step further by asking you to clarify one aspect of your position:
Reading between the lines, I think you’re advocating a line drawn in a place quite different from that drawn by Aureus (a few posts above, within this thread), who wants to protect zygotes. I understand that you think a zygote does not warrant any protection. I don’t even know if “zygote” is the right term, but let me ask it this way: from what you know and have learnt about the first 3-4 weeks of pregnancy, do you think there is no question that abortion should be allowed during that very early stage? [Here’s a link with some info on the first trimester.]
From what I’ve read, no, I don’t see any reason to forbid 1st trimester abortions. I’ve never seen anything to indicate any evidence for cognition at that stage. And it’s true that the vast majority of abortions don’t even come close to crossing any reasonable line of cognitive/non-cognitive status (I don’t know how partial-birth abortions fit into that). I didn’t bring up the question of moral basis because I felt that many abortions aren’t actually justified- it’s more because the reasons that I’ve read to justify abortion often appeared based on non-essentials, and while they may ultimately lead to the same ocnclusion most of the time, I’d prefer to establish a more rationally justifiable guideline. Of course, a clear guideline is only half the battle in this case- it may be some time before we can pinpoint with any real accuracy the time at which significant brain development occurs, but there is at least some knowledge, and no doubt more to come in the future.
I ask this because I’m not exactly certain on how Objectivism define an organism as “human”.
There’s nothing special there. Some life-forms are by nature dependent on others in order to exist, for example plasmodium falciparum, taenia solium, remora brachyptera, cuscuta and grammica. That is not the nature of humans. The connection between rights and rationality is not in the actual exercise, but in having the rational faculty, so it is immaterial that toddlers can be bratty.
If one thought that way, it would be proper to say that you agree with all of Objectivism with the exception of the right to abortion, but you should not claim the title of Objectivist.
This kind of language always makes me cringe. Like the fact that I am still evaluating certain topics that were also evaluated by Ayn Rand somehow makes me an Apostate, so my choice is to accept ARI on faith or to reject Ayn Rand. Yeah right B)
OPAR has two paragraphs devoted to the topic of abortion, and it is a normative topic, so the claim that the entire philosophy rests on the evaluation of the abortion issue is ridiculous. Clearly someone who has a claim against abortion because of their religious beliefs has a poor understanding of individual rights. However, the question of when the zygote becomes a man (“rational animal”) strikes me as a scientific question, not a philosophical question. My primary skepticism comes from my observation of my cousin who is 3 months old and also clearly meets all of your criteria for “parasite.”
This is not an extremely important topic to me since I will never have to opportunity to get an abortion. Currently I am pro-choice because I do not feel the government should be involved, but I would not recommend to someone to get an abortion.
This kind of language always makes me cringe. Like the fact that I am still evaluating certain topics that were also evaluated by Ayn Rand somehow makes me an Apostate, so my choice is to accept ARI on faith or to reject Ayn Rand. Yeah right :huh:
Your attacks on the ARI (and on Stephen Speicher) are injust. The whole philosophy does rest on each point in a sense, because Objectivism is an integrated whole. If you disagree with part of Objectivism, don’t call yourself an Objectivist (because you aren’t). If you are not sure if you are an Objectivist, and need to learn more or investigate a given issue in a more indepth answer, call yourself a “Student of Objectivism.”
(There is nothing inherently morally wrong with being uncertain about certain points in Objectivism or even disagreeing, but one can’t honestly call oneself an Objectivist in those cases).