Therefore even after birth a newborn infant doesn’t have any rights.
Just as an FYI, this too is not Rand’s position.
Just as an FYI, this too is not Rand’s position.
And what is Rand’s position? Rand never discussed the question of late abortion or rights of the newborn infant. Rand also never referred to the problem of rights versus morality. However one should be able to infer proper conclusions in regard to these and many other problems which Rand never discussed by using the whole context of the Objectivist knowledge. Or consider, for example the problem of actual versus potential. Rand mentioned in regard to the problem of abortion that actual is more valuable than potential. But is this always true? Obviously not. In Objectivism the basic moral question is " value for whom and for what?" In many instances man exchanges the actual value to the potential value not as a sacrifice but because he hopes to obtain gain-like in case of investment, for example, and in many other cases.
Rand mentioned in regard to the problem of abortion that actual is more valuable than potential.
She did? Where?
And what is Rand’s position?
Her position is that a newborn infant does have rights.
She did? Where?
“Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.”
“The Age of Mediocrity”
The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 3
Her position is that a newborn infant does have rights.
She never claimed that. What she claimed is that “a human being’s life begins at birth.”. It doesn’t mean that a newborn child possesses rights.
You might consider what she wrote in
The Letters of Ayn Rand
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)
Individual rights are an absolute, not to be “balanced” or limited by anybody. (And don’t answer me that an individual’s right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government nor society that “sets up rights for an individual or group.” These rights are not “set up” (nor “rigged up” nor “framed up”). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth.
She never claimed that. What she claimed is that “a human being’s life begins at birth.”. It doesn’t mean that a newborn child possesses rights.
So, are you saying that Rand thought abortion was immoral at 12 weeks, but that parents should be allowed – legally – to abort their fetus and kill their children? According to your interpretation, did Rand also imply that parent can legally kill their teenagers, or did she draw some line?
“Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.”
“The Age of Mediocrity”
The Objectivist Forum, June 1981, 3
Correct, AT BIRTH.
When is birth then?
I’d argure, it’s the moment when the cord is clamped and cut. Only then does the fetus (biological parasite) becomes fully independent of the pregnant woman (host) and becomes a child, and then has rights.
You might consider what she wrote in
The Letters of Ayn Rand
The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged Years (1945-1959)
Individual rights are an absolute, not to be “balanced” or limited by anybody. (And don’t answer me that an individual’s right to murder, for instance, is limited. Such a right never existed in the first place.) It certainly is not the government nor society that “sets up rights for an individual or group.” These rights are not “set up” (nor “rigged up” nor “framed up”). They are inherent in the nature of man. Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth.
dream weaver,
I’m not certain this helps my concerns on the issue. What I need is some clarity
of a possible distinction between ‘moral’ rights and individual rights, both of
which Rand seemed to use interchangeably. Rights are “inherent in the nature of man”
always seemed to me to be a universal absolute - a metaphysical given (by virtue of
having life). Individual rights (imo)are a man-made derivation, protecting one from
violations of freedom from others, and enforced by a minimal gov’t.
I think changing context to a baby born in North Korea, might help.
The baby has ‘moral’ rights - I’ve heard also called ‘natural rights’ - but he or she obviously
doesn’t have individual rights from her State. When she grows up, wherever she goes in
the world, her political rights may vary (i.e. “human rights”, individual rights) but her
moral rights remain sacrosanct.
I am not sure I’ve created my own dichotomy here, or have a crucial distinction!
I’m not as well versed in this area. The distinction between moral and legal rights may stem from the political system implimented. If the political system is established objectively, it should flow from the facts of man as a moral being, at which point, would such a distinction be necessary?
I am not sure I’ve created my own dichotomy here, or have a crucial distinction!
The word “rights” is used to designate two different concepts:
- what an individual ought to be able to do without the government stopping him; and,
- what an individual is allowed to do by law, without the government stopping him
I’m not as well versed in this area. The distinction between moral and legal rights may stem from the political system implimented. If the political system is established objectively, it should flow from the facts of man as a moral being, at which point, would such a distinction be necessary?
There is no such a thing as moral right. Rights are natural and define the freedom of choice and action. Morality is the means to make such a choice . Rights are metaphysically given, “Man is endowed with them by the fact of his birth.” Morality is not, it has to be discovered. They are two different concepts-one stems from the nature of man, another from epistemology. The meaning of rights in the social context is that man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn’t infringe the same right of others. Therefore man’s actions could be completely rightful and deeply immoral, like non-violent racism for example.
The meaning of rights in the social context is that man can do whatever he pleases as long as he doesn’t infringe the same right of others. Therefore man’s actions could be completely rightful and deeply immoral, like non-violent racism for example.
Nice concretization.