Ayn Rand on Abortion

[Brian Smith 0]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

[PhilO 0]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

[Brian Smith 0]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

I have it and did not find anything but very general references to abortion. From what I could find it did not contain any discussions about moral questions pertaining to late term abortions. Yet, as I said, I seem to recall reading at least one of her writings with such a discussion in it. Are you specifically aware of such a discussion and which article/essay/whatever it was in?

[softwareGuru 0]

Brian, I think you may be thinking of the following:

A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

From a few other quotations (FHF via the "Answers" compilation), my interpretation is that Rand was not expressing doubts about third trimester abortions. Rather, she was saying that people could argue that in the later stages what one had was more than a piece of protoplasm. However, from a philosophical/political viewpoint, she held that life starts at birth. In the FHF Q&A she said something like this again, mentioning that people might argue about the medical question (I'm paraphrasing, please check the "Answers" compilation), and that she did not know about that aspect, but from a philosophical viewpoint...

...life starts at birth.

I think she made the same point in an FHF Q&A in 1967.

[Brian Smith 0]

Brian, I think you may be thinking of the following:

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

My recollection is of something a bit more in-depth than a single sentence. And my source would not have been the FHF, unless there is an older compilation of the Q&A from them than the one published very recently.

However, your suggestion to look in the AR ANSWERS book was a good one. It does touch to some degree upon the moral questions I was referencing:

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

"An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human..."

"You might argue that medically an embryo is alive at six to eight months. I don't know. But no woman in her right mind would have an abortion that late; it's very dangerous for her."

"a human embryo does not even have the beginnings of a nervous system until a number of months (around three, I believe) into the pregnancy. At that point, the embryo is perhaps potentially conscious. And beyond this time, abortion becomes dangerous to the mother....before that point, there is no rational, moral, or semi-humane argument that could be made in favor of forbidding abortion."

All of this tends to support my recollections of AR's arguments, but they do not go much into the (limited) depth that I remember. My recollection is of a discussion about the different trimesters and the philosophical/ethical implications of the development at these different stages. As such, I am still wondering if there is not another essay, article, or other work of hers out there which is still eluding me on this issue.

[Jason Fowler 0]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

I think I may be, in part, responsible for this. You see, it was I who bought your copy of The Ayn Rand Letter.

The name of the article in The Ayn Rand Letter is: A Last Survey.

[PhilO 0]

My recollection is of a discussion about the different trimesters and the philosophical/ethical implications of the development at these different stages.

I am certain that I've never read anything by Ayn Rand where she goes into that sort of detail. I highly doubt that she ever did, partly because I've read quite a bit, but more so because it's a matter of principle at *any* stage of fetal development (that until delivery it's part of the mother's body, her body and her right to it.)

[Brian Smith 0]

I am certain that I've never read anything by Ayn Rand where she goes into that sort of detail.

I'm not indicating that it was an extensive essay on the subject, but that it did mention such terms and discussed some of the points I just quoted from AR in relation to those terms and stages. Perhaps if it was not AR, it was Dr. P (again this would have been in writing, not any audio presentations).

[Matt 0]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."

i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

[Brian Smith 0]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."

i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

The actual context of Miss Rand's statement:

"I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue.) The right to abortion is the right to get rid of some cells in your body, which you cant afford to support if it grows into a child."

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."

i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

The actual context of Miss Rand's statement:

"I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue.) The right to abortion is the right to get rid of some cells in your body, which you cant afford to support if it grows into a child."

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

Two scenarios:

1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.

2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

These are very generic scenarios that naturally don't factor in the many reasons someone would choose to have the procedure performed (economic, religious, moral, legal, etc.).

The debate always seems to focus on the same ethical and/or moral questions (i.e., "it is only a cluster of cells," or, "it is a child at conception," or, "it is the woman's right [depending on the stage of preganancy she's in] since it is her body.") . Primarily, those who are for abortion seem to agree (mostly) that 1. the woman has the ultimate right/privledge, as it is growing in her body, and 2. it is not the place of the government to encroach on a human's right to choose what to do with her body.

Now, I know this is a very cheap summarizaton of the debate, but I'm merely using it as a jumping point for my question:

The man who provided the sperm to enseminate the egg that created the cells in question, does he have any say so? What has the dialogue between ethicists said on this? Is there anywhere in Ayn Rand's work where she may have addressed this? I've not been able to find any discussion on this, legal, philosophical, spiritual, or otherwise. It always seems to be a non-issue to those who are passionate about either side of the dreaded abortion debate.

Thanks for your time and input.

Aaron

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Two scenarios:

1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.

Since she is the one who makes the choice, she takes the consequences which means she pays for the pregnancy and for the support of the child.

2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

He's out of luck because you can't enforce "specific performance" which, in this case, means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term. He's also responsible for half of the cost of the abortion since he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

[Scott A. 0]

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

I don't know if Ayn Rand has spoken to this directly, but I have a memory of hearing (or reading) this issue raised before. My guess is that those most likely to support the idea are anti-abortionists. I think the basic question is whether or not property rights exist, with one's body being the most fundamental property one has.

If the father has a legal right to intervene in the decision process, then the real effect would be to give him final say regardless of the woman's choice. After all, if she says she wants an abortion and he says no, but she goes ahead and does it anyway, then his right has been violated (or so it would be argued). In other words, the enactment of his right, to be realized, would have to be demonstrated by an impact on the decision. But this is a yes/no decision, and so his right could only be exercised by having final say. Obviously the woman has just lost the right to her own life and property, and must bear the unwanted burden of the pregnancy and, if she is conscientious, the duty of raising a child.

As an aside, although the woman in the above situation may love the child she was forced to have, there will likely be a shadow over the early and, in many ways, most formative years of his development. Children are amazingly perceptive of human behavior, particularly to the emotional expressions of adults, and especially their parents. They will know something is wrong, that it has to do with them, but they won't know what. It's not necessarily a formula for disaster, but it is unnecessary to begin with.

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

Two scenarios:

1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.

Since she is the one who makes the choice, she takes the consequences which means she pays for the pregnancy and for the support of the child.

2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

He's out of luck because you can't enforce "specific performance" which, in this case, means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term. He's also responsible for half of the cost of the abortion since he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

That would make sense, and yet it seems to me that the logic to answer #2 is the logic applied to question #1 ,and the logic applied to answer #1 is the logic applied to question #2. At least in terms of parental rights/support laws and my perception of the ever-elusive "general moral consensus" among those outspoken on this issue.

What might account for this discrepancy?

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

If the father has a legal right to intervene in the decision process, then the real effect would be to give him final say regardless of the woman's choice. After all, if she says she wants an abortion and he says no, but she goes ahead and does it anyway, then his right has been violated (or so it would be argued). In other words, the enactment of his right, to be realized, would have to be demonstrated by an impact on the decision. But this is a yes/no decision, and so his right could only be exercised by having final say. Obviously the woman has just lost the right to her own life and property, and must bear the unwanted burden of the pregnancy and, if she is conscientious, the duty of raising a child.

And yet, if the father chooses he doesn't want to have the child, he has no legal recourse. Instead, he then takes on legal responsibility, in the form of child-support. Haven't his rights been violated then, or, because the cells are growing in a person's body other than his own, does he have no leg to stand on, so to speak? The inverse of this thinking holds true too. He wanted the baby, and she didn't. Haven't his rights as co-creator, as it were, been violated too? That's not to say he wanted to force her to have it and raise it herself, just that he wanted a child, regardless of the mother's participation in the parenting process.

It's just always bothered me that the issue always factors out half of the parental equation.

I just feel that this has been oversimplified and overlooked all too often. That's why I was curious to see what scholars have said about it.

[ewv 0]

I don't know if Ayn Rand has spoken to this directly, but I have a memory of hearing (or reading) this issue raised before. My guess is that those most likely to support the idea are anti-abortionists. I think the basic question is whether or not property rights exist, with one's body being the most fundamental property one has.

The idea of rights based on a 'property right' to your own body is an old libertarian formulation which I don't think Ayn Rand ever endorsed in any form and don't remember her discussing. Property rights are derivative from your right to your own life, which includes (obviously) your own body. You can't base the rights of the individual on property rights.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

That would make sense, and yet it seems to me that the logic to answer #2 is the logic applied to question #1 ,and the logic applied to answer #1 is the logic applied to question #2. At least in terms of parental rights/support laws and my perception of the ever-elusive "general moral consensus" among those outspoken on this issue.

What might account for this discrepancy?

It is a biological fact that in 100% of the cases, it is the woman who carries the fetus and has the choice to carry it to term or not. The moral principle involved is that a person is responsible for the consequences of his own choices and actions, nothing more and nothing less. "General moral consensus" should have nothing to do with it.

[ewv 0]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

Is it going out of print? No new edition with all the new material? Are there copies preserved in acid-free plastic safely hidden in caves?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

And yet, if the father chooses he doesn't want to have the child, he has no legal recourse. Instead, he then takes on legal responsibility, in the form of child-support. Haven't his rights been violated then

I think so because he is at least 50% responsible for the pregnancy, but she is 100% responsible for the birth. If he is willing to pay for an abortion, he shouldn't have to pay child support.

The inverse of this thinking holds true too. He wanted the baby, and she didn't. Haven't his rights as co-creator, as it were, been violated too? That's not to say he wanted to force her to have it and raise it herself, just that he wanted a child, regardless of the mother's participation in the parenting process.

He has other options for achieving that goal including hiring a surrogate mother and adoption. Forcing an unwilling woman to carry his child is not an option.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

Is it going out of print? No new edition with all the new material? Are there copies preserved in acid-free plastic safely hidden in caves?

The discussion that followed was moved to the topic "Objectivism Research CD" here.

[la zafada 0]

The logical extension of the statement, "If [the potential father] is willing to pay for an abortion, he shouldn't have to pay child support," is that a man need never be responsible for contraception or for the welfare of his children.

However, "Abortion... should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." (“Of Living Death,” TO, 10/68)

Ayn Rand made this statement in support of abortion, but it applies to carrying the fetus to term. The principle is the same: the woman is in charge of her body. The man’s willingness to pay for an abortion is irrelevant if the woman decides to have the child.

The fact is that, like a woman, a man can neglect to consider the possible consequences of his actions.

If he does not want to become a father, he could have a vasectomy, use sexual practices that don’t lead to pregnancy or invent a failsafe method of male contraception. Instead, the abortion vs. child support statement attempts to blank out a metaphysical event that the man helped cause: the existence of another human being who is half the result of his choices and his biology.

A woman has the opportunity to reject parenthood at conception (birth control drugs) and at pregnancy (abortion). A man has the opportunity at conception.

Even supposing that the mother and father agree that the mother will raise the child alone, the child is a third human being in that equation. The child has a separate claim on each parent that's independent of any agreement the parents might have made. Thankfully, family courts exist in this country to protect the child’s welfare.

Finally, the idea that a man can morally refuse to support his child if he offers to pay for an abortion is far from Ayn Rand's statement that an ambitious couple may choose abortion because they are poor:

"Parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor... parenthood would condemn them to a life of...slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs." ("The Age of Mediocrity, TOF, 6/81)

Even considering the decreased stigma of unwed motherhood today, note Ayn Rand’s next sentence: “The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.”

Where did the idea of no male responsibility come from? Where, specifically, did Ayn Rand advocate that idea?

Sally

[Betsy Speicher 0]

The logical extension of the statement, "If [the potential father] is willing to pay for an abortion, he shouldn't have to pay child support," is that a man need never be responsible for contraception or for the welfare of his children.

I don't see that this necessarily follows.

Where did the idea of no male responsibility come from? Where, specifically, did Ayn Rand advocate that idea.

The views expressed were solely my own based on the principle that a person is responsible for the consequences of his/her own actions in the current context where abortions are safe and legal.

I don't recall that Ayn Rand ever proposed a solution when a man wants the woman to have an abortion and is willing to pay for it and the woman wants to keep the baby. That situation did arise in her play "Ideal" and there her sympathies seemed to be with the husband.

[la zafada 0]

The views expressed were solely my own....

OK, thanks for clarifying, Betsy.

I must say that I'm grateful to Stephen and you for creating this forum, where ideas on Objectivism can be discussed freely.

Cheers,

Sally

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

The views expressed were solely my own....

OK, thanks for clarifying, Betsy.

I must say that I'm grateful to Stephen and you for creating this forum, where ideas on Objectivism can be discussed freely.

Cheers,

Sally

I sincerely appreciate everyone's input on this matter, as it has been something I've been curious about since first becoming aware of the abortion issue as a child in the '80s. I remember reading many copies of Time and The Atlantic when the issue was plastered all over the front pages of most glossies in America. And even then I thought--most likely because I'm a male, obviously--that there was a disturbing void regarding the male's role/rights when this issue has been debated.

Other than Ayn Rand's play Ideal, is there any literature anyone knows of that specifically addresses this issue?

Thanks again for all the thoughtful responses.

Aaron

[la zafada 0]

...even then I thought--most likely because I'm a male, obviously--that there was a disturbing void regarding the male's role/rights when this issue has been debated.

Other than Ayn Rand's play Ideal, is there any literature anyone knows of that specifically addresses this issue?

The "secret baby" that the woman has without the man's knowledge is a stock "hook" that's enormously popular in romance fiction, particularly category romance (short novels with a 1-month shelf life, like magazines). The reasons vary about why the baby is a secret. The stories are largely benevolent, with the man taking his proper place as the father and the woman reconciling with him.

Is that what you're looking for? I don't keep too close an eye on literary fiction, but I don't recall any titles on that subject that have come out lately.

Or do you mean, specifically, the man's role in the decision to abort or carry to term?

For secret baby romances, Romantic Times Book Reviews compiled a list in 1996 that's available at:

<http://www.romantictimes.com/books_themes.php?theme=63>. You might also try paging through their search features, or writing them a letter about abortion stories in particular.

There have probably been scores published since then. If you go to eHarlequin.com, you could scroll through past titles to search for that subject. Or, to receive a periodic newsletter with some secret baby titles as they’re published, go to eHarlequin.com, establish an account (upper right corner), go to your personal profile page, check Favorite Themes and then customize with Baby and Pregnant Heroine.

Do you want to stick to fiction, or look at studies? My fiance's a Family Court psychotherapist and we have a friend who's one of the leading specialists in domestic violence. They could probably steer you in the right direction.

Cheers,

Sally