Ayn Rand on Abortion

[Guest Aaron Michael Morales]

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.

Sally,

I'm actually not much a fan of romance, though I have read a bit of it so that I can justify my stance on that particulary genre.

What I was looking for was scholarly work (studies, essays, theories, etc) on the original question I asked about the rights/roles of males in the abortion discussion.

Thanks,

Aaron

[la zafada 0]

I just thought of a couple of titles.

Author Susan Gable has written two Harlequins that might or might not interest you: Whose Child? and The Mommy Plan. You can view the books at <http://www.susangable.com/books_by_susan_gable.htm>.

They're no longer available through Harlequin, but you might find them on eBay, as used books on Amazon or via Paperbackswap. Susan probably has copies she could sell you, too.

Cheers,

Sally

[la zafada 0]

What I was looking for was scholarly work (studies, essays, theories, etc) on the original question I asked about the rights/roles of males in the abortion discussion.

Oops, our messages crossed. I'll ask around and see about those scholarly studies.

Sally

[B. Royce 0]

A couple thoughts on abortion.

1. A man and woman engage in sex, which they both know can lead to the woman getting pregnant.

So, if she gets pregnant, they are both responsible for that fact.

2. If the woman wants to carry the fetus to term, it is solely her responsibility, because only she can possibly do it. Is this true? In the later stages of pregnancy doesn't she often need help in getting around? If she can no longer work, doesn't she need help in paying the bills? And aren't these considerations a part of "carrying the fetus to term"? Indeed, keeping herself alive and safe and healthy is also part of it. If the man is partly responsible for the fact of pregnancy, does his responsibility suddenly die away until a baby is born, at which time it magically resurfaces?

3. If the woman decides to abort, she is choosing not only to abort the fetus, but to abort the man's and her own responsibility for the fetus. There is a kind of just balance here---she could not possibly get pregnant without him (that is, pregnancy is ultimately his choice), but aborting, or vetoing, his action/choice is up to her. In cases of rape, abortion keeps a woman from becoming a slave (in such situations abortion is a supreme virtue!)

Anyone care to respond? Or have these points/questions already been covered?

[Paul's Here 0]

A couple thoughts on abortion.

1. A man and woman engage in sex, which they both know can lead to the woman getting pregnant.

So, if she gets pregnant, they are both responsible for that fact.

Agree. I would also suggest that a woman should not have sex with a man unless she has some expectation of responsibility on the part of the man in the event that she does become pregnant. In other words, she should judge his character before having sex.

2. If the woman wants to carry the fetus to term, it is solely her responsibility, because only she can possibly do it. Is this true? In the later stages of pregnancy doesn't she often need help in getting around? If she can no longer work, doesn't she need help in paying the bills? And aren't these considerations a part of "carrying the fetus to term"? Indeed, keeping herself alive and safe and healthy is also part of it. If the man is partly responsible for the fact of pregnancy, does his responsibility suddenly die away until a baby is born, at which time it magically resurfaces?

I don't think "it is solely her responsibility". Both the man and woman have responsibilities within the context of their relationship, as well as their sexual roles. Those responsibilities exist during pregnancy as well as after. The nature of the responsibilities may change. Also, there are differences between moral and legal responsibilities that parents have to the child.

3. If the woman decides to abort, she is choosing not only to abort the fetus, but to abort the man's and her own responsibility for the fetus. There is a kind of just balance here---she could not possibly get pregnant without him (that is, pregnancy is ultimately his choice), but aborting, or vetoing, his action/choice is up to her. In cases of rape, abortion keeps a woman from becoming a slave (in such situations abortion is a supreme virtue!)

Anyone care to respond? Or have these points/questions already been covered?

I wouldn't call a woman a slave if she gives birth after being raped. She is still free to give the child up for adoption.

[peter fox 0]

I’ve read most of Ayn Rand’s works and agree with the tenets of Objectivism, but am having a hard time reconciling the practical application of the abortion stance Ms. Rand held and objectivists hold.

This question has been rolling around in my head for a while now and came to the forefront when I visited the Bodyworlds exhibit a few days ago. I understand that the argument for abortion is that a fetus is not a human being, rather a cluster of morphing cells growing inside the uterus. Given that premise it seems rather correct that a woman should have the choice to remove the cells as one would do with a tumor rather than sacrifice her career, money, life etc. to care for an unwanted baby.

The issue I have always had with that argument is that at some point during a pregnancy the fetus becomes more than just a clump of cells. At some point the brain starts to develop, hands and feet are formed, the heart beats and the fetus is able to move. At the Bodyworlds exhibit I viewed a display of what a fetus looks like from 1 week through to 28 weeks. During the first 6 weeks or so, it does appear as just a clump of cells, then from the 7th week on it looks just like a baby. I realize this is emotion speaking rather than logic and is not a philosophical statement, but as a father and as a person who craves justice in the world, I can’t help but wonder whether we have the right to end the incubation of that embryo and if so, when. I realize this is a much discussed topic and generally anti-abortionists are given short shrift in Objectivist circles, but as I agree in principle with many other Objectivist ideas, I would like to understand why I am not able to integrate this one.

I also haven’t heard a solid argument against the cause and effect case for banning abortion. Procreation is not the only reason humans have sex, but biologically it is the purpose of sex and anyone partaking in the act knows that pregnancy can occur. To ensure that we are able to enjoy sex without worrying about pregnancy, individuals have created various forms of birth control. If a person does not want a baby, yet partakes in unprotected sex are they not trying to distort reality, to have their cake and eat it too? Borrowing money may be a good parallel. It is perfectly fine to borrow money, so long as you can pay it back, but if you borrow money knowing full well that there is a good chance you can not pay it back, then later on you can't pay it back should you have the right to terminate your obligation (many mortgagors are saying yes right now)? If you choose to have unprotected sex knowing full well that pregnancy is a very realistic possibility should you have the right to terminate that obligation as much of a hardship as it may be?

It is horrifying when we hear that a mother has smothered her 3 month old baby because she couldn’t handle it. To use the most extreme example, why is it not horrible that a doctor removes from the womb a fetus at 7 months and sucks its brains out with a vacuum (according to the Guttmacher Institute via Wikipedia .17% of all abortions are done this way which is about 2,200 per year). I believe I have heard Ayn Rand in one of her speeches (possibly Of Living Death) state that abortion is moral so long as the fetus could not survive outside of the womb. That would mean that some (most?) late term abortions would be immoral, but also raises the question, why? What does dependence on the womb have to do with the morality of abortion? If the right to abort is conditional, what are the conditions?

[Arnold 0]

What does dependence on the womb have to do with the morality of abortion? If the right to abort is conditional, what are the conditions?

Ownership of the womb. If she prefers not to put it to use, then as owner, that is her right. The foetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is independent. Only an independent body has the rights of an independent - to be left alone. All others must have decisions made for them.

However, once it is born, a baby is independent (meaning separate from the mother, not independent in the sense of being self sufficient) and there is an implied obligation to care for it, because has been created by the parents with that understanding.

[peter fox 0]

What does dependence on the womb have to do with the morality of abortion? If the right to abort is conditional, what are the conditions?

Ownership of the womb. If she prefers not to put it to use, then as owner, that is her right.

I agree that ownership does entail rights of disposal of said property, but only so long as no other man is harmed. The question I posed is really, how is a being that has a nervous system, brain, heart and every other part of a human, not a human?

I would also argue that one should know that a potential result of unprotected sex is pregnancy and if one does not want to put their womb to use there are many methods to avoid doing so.

The foetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is independent. Only an independent body has the rights of an independent - to be left alone. All others must have decisions made for them.

I am not sure that I understand the roots of the assertion that only an independent body has rights. By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

[Joss Delage 0]

I'm interested in the answers to that...

[Mercury 0]

What does dependence on the womb have to do with the morality of abortion? If the right to abort is conditional, what are the conditions?

Ownership of the womb. If she prefers not to put it to use, then as owner, that is her right.

I agree that ownership does entail rights of disposal of said property, but only so long as no other man is harmed. The question I posed is really, how is a being that has a nervous system, brain, heart and every other part of a human, not a human?

I would also argue that one should know that a potential result of unprotected sex is pregnancy and if one does not want to put their womb to use there are many methods to avoid doing so.

The foetus is a part of the mother until such time as it is independent. Only an independent body has the rights of an independent - to be left alone. All others must have decisions made for them.

I am not sure that I understand the roots of the assertion that only an independent body has rights. By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

My understanding is that a human foetus is not an independent life until it exhibits signs of consciousness, which is not the same thing as brain activity. This is said to occur around the 3rd month of pregnancy (the end of the first trimester).

See if this essay doesn't answer your questions:

http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm

[~Sophia~ 0]

By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

I agree with you. To me, the line of cutting off the placenta is arbitrary. It does not make something into a man. At some point of development the sperm-egg combo does become fully functional separate being. It will survive if removed. We need science to determine that line between potential vs. an actual being.

[peter fox 0]

See if this essay doesn't answer your questions:

http://www.peikoff.com/essays/abortion.htm

Thanks for the link Mercury. I see Mr. Peikoff's argument regarding the first trimester and agree that the "embryo at this stage is clearly pre-human." But later in the article Mr. Peikoff quotes Ayn Rand with the following:

"Rights," in Ayn Rand’s words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."

This leads me to believe that the Objectivist stance is abortion is moral right up until birth.

By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

I agree with you. To me, the line of cutting off the placenta is arbitrary. It does not make something into a man. At some point of development the sperm-egg combo does become fully functional separate being. It will survive if removed. We need science to determine that line between potential vs. an actual being.

I think Sophia's reply gets to the heart of the issue. This would primarily be a question medical professionals should help us objectively define.

Thanks to all of you for helping me clarify my thoughts on this.

[PhilO 0]

This would primarily be a question medical professionals should help us objectively define.

No, it isn't. It's a philosophic issue. When you start to use external viability as some standard, that is a direct route to destroying the right of a mother to her own body. It puts what is ultimately a moving (and never precisely knowable) target on the notion of abortion vs. murder - after all, it is murder to kill a newborn baby. No woman and no doctor should have to factor that kind of uncertainty in their thinking. There are cases where a woman's life could be in danger if a near-term fetus is not removed, perhaps destructively. To cause hesitation - or outright refusal to perform a procedure that could result in criminal charges against the doctor - and thus to potentially sacrifice the life of a real, unique adult human being to something that is still part of her body, is simply altruistic and sacrificial.

[B. Royce 0]

This would primarily be a question medical professionals should help us objectively define.

No, it isn't. It's a philosophic issue. When you start to use external viability as some standard, that is a direct route to destroying the right of a mother to her own body. It puts what is ultimately a moving (and never precisely knowable) target on the notion of abortion vs. murder - after all, it is murder to kill a newborn baby. No woman and no doctor should have to factor that kind of uncertainty in their thinking. There are cases where a woman's life could be in danger if a near-term fetus is not removed, perhaps destructively. To cause hesitation - or outright refusal to perform a procedure that could result in criminal charges against the doctor - and thus to potentially sacrifice the life of a real, unique adult human being to something that is still part of her body, is simply altruistic and sacrificial.

This is exactly right.

[B. Royce 0]

By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

I agree with you. To me, the line of cutting off the placenta is arbitrary. It does not make something into a man. At some point of development the sperm-egg combo does become fully functional separate being. It will survive if removed. We need science to determine that line between potential vs. an actual being.

The fetus becomes a separate being when it separates from the mother's womb. We do not need science at all to determine that basic fact. A woman's individual rights over every aspect of, and everything included in, her body are inviolate and absolute. Four months pregnant, seven months, nine months---whatever a woman chooses to do with her fetus is her individual right. No scientist, no government official, has an individual right to force a woman to act as he desires.

[peter fox 0]

This would primarily be a question medical professionals should help us objectively define.

No, it isn't. It's a philosophic issue. When you start to use external viability as some standard, that is a direct route to destroying the right of a mother to her own body. It puts what is ultimately a moving (and never precisely knowable) target on the notion of abortion vs. murder - after all, it is murder to kill a newborn baby. No woman and no doctor should have to factor that kind of uncertainty in their thinking. There are cases where a woman's life could be in danger if a near-term fetus is not removed, perhaps destructively. To cause hesitation - or outright refusal to perform a procedure that could result in criminal charges against the doctor - and thus to potentially sacrifice the life of a real, unique adult human being to something that is still part of her body, is simply altruistic and sacrificial.

If I read "Ethics of Emergencies" in TVOS correctly, when discussing an ethical issue man should not base his morality on emergency situations (the lifeboat example, p.55, 1998 edition). Certainly emergency situations need to be considered secondarily and medical professionals do this on a daily basis but the morality of a volitional, non-emergency late term abortion can not be justified based on this argument. I understand the 'slippery slope' argument and agree that practically it would be difficult to define. However difficulty of definition and practical application are not arguments for the morality of an action. My point is that it is a question of science to help us determine when a person is medically a person, not necessarily viable externally, but a human being.

[peter fox 0]

By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

I agree with you. To me, the line of cutting off the placenta is arbitrary. It does not make something into a man. At some point of development the sperm-egg combo does become fully functional separate being. It will survive if removed. We need science to determine that line between potential vs. an actual being.

The fetus becomes a separate being when it separates from the mother's womb. We do not need science at all to determine that basic fact. A woman's individual rights over every aspect of, and everything included in, her body are inviolate and absolute. Four months pregnant, seven months, nine months---whatever a woman chooses to do with her fetus is her individual right. No scientist, no government official, has an individual right to force a woman to act as he desires.

A man's rights always end just before violating another man's rights, so the stance of Objectivism must be that the fetus is never a person even five minutes before its birth. At birth, the fetus is physically separated from the womb, but specifically how does that change the nature of the being? I go back to my question, how is the nature of the fetus 5 minutes before birth so radically different from a baby one minute after birth?

It has been argued well by Mr. Peikoff and others that in the first three months the fetus is just a clump of cells with no resemblance to a human. I have not been able to find any arguments about the nature of a fetus in the 2nd and 3rd trimesters.

[PhilO 0]

My point is that it is a question of science to help us determine when a person is medically a person, not necessarily viable externally, but a human being.

*My* point is that it's a question of philosophy and common sense to observe that a fetus does not become a human being until it's outside the mother and physically cut off from her body, and capable of independent existence (subject to the necessity of being nourished by adults for a time.) Her body is *her* body.

Arguing over whether it's an "emergency" or not is exactly the kind of thing I covered in my earlier post. On the one side are Christian fanatics eager to pounce on any hint of abortion; on the other side are doctors doing their job and fearing such persecution even in such emergencies. *Was* it really an emergency, doctor? We're going to send the FBI around and do a little investigation ... just to make sure. That is not mere hypothesis, the anti-abortionists have made their intentions abundantly clear.

It may be arguable that a woman who terminated an 8 month pregnancy acted immorally if the only reason is that she "didn't get around to it" earlier, but it is not a rights issue because only human *beings* have rights. Not every immorality is, or should be, a legal issue.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I am not sure that I understand the roots of the assertion that only an independent body has rights. By that standard it would be moral to abort a fetus 5 minutes before birth but not one minute after. How is the nature of a fetus and its rights changed by the separation from the body?

I suspect some of the difficulty may come from confusing the morality with the legality of abortion.

Objectivism holds that acting thoughtlessly without considering the consequences of one's actions, which would include pregnancy and birth, is immoral. Objectivism also holds that the needless destruction of a value -- and a potential human being is usually a great value -- is immoral. Thus, in most contexts, Objectivists would consider a late-term abortion immoral. (In fact, there are actually very few late-term abortions and almost all of them are done because the birth would cause great physical damage to the mother.)

The issue is one of legality and thus, it is one of rights and, especially, of the requirements of objective law. An abortion law must have standards that are clear, knowable in advance, and perceivable. There cannot be any ambiguity or after the fact judgement calls. "Viability" is a much more ambiguous standard than being physically outside of the mother's body so the latter is a better legal standard.

[RayK 0]

Peter, if an abortion comes down to the point that you are using as an example the principle does not change, an actual has rights over a potential. And, the women is the actual, with the rights. So, there are no rights being violated during an abortion as a potential has not rights.

[peter fox 0]

*My* point is that it's a question of philosophy and common sense to observe that a fetus does not become a human being until it's outside the mother and physically cut off from her body, and capable of independent existence (subject to the necessity of being nourished by adults for a time.) Her body is *her* body.

I am new to this debate and some of the philosophical arguments back of it, so I apologize for any ignorance but I emphatically do not see it as being common sense that the detachment of the fetus from the womb is what changes a fetus to a human being. I see no change in the nature of the fetus at that point other than its home and its source of nourishment. I am not saying it is not true, simply that it is not common sense and I have not seen any evidence presented to back up the claim (for 2nd and 3rd trimester).

Arguing over whether it's an "emergency" or not is exactly the kind of thing I covered in my earlier post. On the one side are Christian fanatics eager to pounce on any hint of abortion; on the other side are doctors doing their job and fearing such persecution even in such emergencies. *Was* it really an emergency, doctor? We're going to send the FBI around and do a little investigation ... just to make sure. That is not mere hypothesis, the anti-abortionists have made their intentions abundantly clear.

I understand the practical difficulties associated with any legislation in this area, but disagree that these difficulties should necessarily (taken by themselves) prevent such a law. While unintended consequences should be considered when framing a law those consequences do not dictate which laws are proper. The right to bear arms means that some will be able to use a gun to commit crimes, but more importantly protects an individual's right to protect himself. IF, a fetus in the eight month is a human being, terminating it in non-emergency situations should be illegal regardless of who may attempt to abuse such laws.

[peter fox 0]

I suspect some of the difficulty may come from confusing the morality with the legality of abortion.

Thanks Betsy, you are absolutely right. I mixed the two concepts in some of previous arguments.

Objectivism holds that acting thoughtlessly without considering the consequences of one's actions, which would include pregnancy and birth, is immoral. Objectivism also holds that the needless destruction of a value -- and a potential human being is usually a great value -- is immoral. Thus, in most contexts, Objectivists would consider a late-term abortion immoral. (In fact, there are actually very few late-term abortions and almost all of them are done because the birth would cause great physical damage to the mother.)

This helps me frame the issue better. So, the situation I am discussing is the exception and in accordance with my sensibilities most rational people would find it immoral in the absence of an emergency.

The issue is one of legality and thus, it is one of rights and, especially, of the requirements of objective law. An abortion law must have standards that are clear, knowable in advance, and perceivable. There cannot be any ambiguity or after the fact judgement calls. "Viability" is a much more ambiguous standard than being physically outside of the mother's body so the latter is a better legal standard.

I don't mean to unduly prolong this discussion, but I am still not convinced of this argument. I still haven't proven that a fetus is a human, but if it were possible to prove, then I would imagine ideally (forgetting for a moment the vehemence of the anti-abortion lobby) a codified legal standard erring on the side of the woman's rights and health, similar in theory to self defense vs. manslaughter, could provide an objective basis of judgment. The standard would differ from self defense vs. manslaughter in that there would need to be overwhelming evidence that the woman's health was not in jeopardy and the woman would have an expert witness (the doctor) present at the time in question. Due to the power of the religious lobby it would be extremely difficult to get just the right law and to make sure it is used as intended, but should we really base our laws on the power that irrational people currently hold?

I agree that viability is too ambiguous a standard. I haven't fully examined this side of the issue, but I would think the standard could revolve around consciousness. My thought is that the defining quality of a man as distinguished from an animal is his rational functioning. Medical science should be able to determine when the fetus becomes aware of his surroundings and is able to think. This time period could then be used as a cut off for non-emergency abortion.

My purpose here was to discuss the difficulties in legal definition. All of this rests on the assumption that the fetus at some stage prior to birth becomes a human (actual), which the objectivists do not concede but I have not yet been dissuaded from.

[Ed from OC 0]

I am new to this debate and some of the philosophical arguments back of it, so I apologize for any ignorance but I emphatically do not see it as being common sense that the detachment of the fetus from the womb is what changes a fetus to a human being. I see no change in the nature of the fetus at that point other than its home and its source of nourishment. I am not saying it is not true, simply that it is not common sense and I have not seen any evidence presented to back up the claim (for 2nd and 3rd trimester).

Briefly, the physical separation between fetus and mother is what makes the baby an individual and independent being. While in the womb, it is physically dependent on the mother and is a part of her. Outside, it is a physically separate individual, entitled to individual rights.

Part of the difficulty in grasping this issue lies in the nature of dividing a continuum. From conception to birth is a gradual change from a fertilized egg to a human being. At what point do we ascribe individual rights? Clearly a fully born baby has rights because it is an individual human being. But a fertilized egg clearly does not, as the context which gives rise to individual rights doesn't apply: a small clump of cells has no rational capacity, no ability to respect the rights of others, is not an individual human being, doesn't exist in a social context, and so on. A fertilized egg has no more rights than a few cells of a fingernail.

However, in the course of a normal birth, there is a grey area as the due date approaches in which the baby would be viable if birth is induced early. If the baby is 5 minutes away from birth, I do not think abortion is a proper option, though it certainly is 5 minutes after conception.

So where along this continuum between egg and baby do rights appear? The key is birth. If the baby is separated from the mother and is viable, it then has rights. In any issue involving a continuum where the two ends differ in kind, one has to look for turning points. For pregnancy, the biggest turning point is birth.

[B. Royce 0]

I am new to this debate and some of the philosophical arguments back of it, so I apologize for any ignorance but I emphatically do not see it as being common sense that the detachment of the fetus from the womb is what changes a fetus to a human being. I see no change in the nature of the fetus at that point other than its home and its source of nourishment. I am not saying it is not true, simply that it is not common sense and I have not seen any evidence presented to back up the claim (for 2nd and 3rd trimester).

Briefly, the physical separation between fetus and mother is what makes the baby an individual and independent being. While in the womb, it is physically dependent on the mother and is a part of her. Outside, it is a physically separate individual, entitled to individual rights.

Part of the difficulty in grasping this issue lies in the nature of dividing a continuum. From conception to birth is a gradual change from a fertilized egg to a human being. At what point do we ascribe individual rights? Clearly a fully born baby has rights because it is an individual human being. But a fertilized egg clearly does not, as the context which gives rise to individual rights doesn't apply: a small clump of cells has no rational capacity, no ability to respect the rights of others, is not an individual human being, doesn't exist in a social context, and so on. A fertilized egg has no more rights than a few cells of a fingernail.

However, in the course of a normal birth, there is a grey area as the due date approaches in which the baby would be viable if birth is induced early. If the baby is 5 minutes away from birth, I do not think abortion is a proper option, though it certainly is 5 minutes after conception.

So where along this continuum between egg and baby do rights appear? The key is birth. If the baby is separated from the mother and is viable, it then has rights. In any issue involving a continuum where the two ends differ in kind, one has to look for turning points. For pregnancy, the biggest turning point is birth.

There is some confusion here. It is not a baby which is five minutes away from birth; it is a fetus which is five minutes away from becoming a baby. The baby is not separated from the mother; the fetus, in separating from the mother, becomes a baby---an independent human being. Also, to say that you do not think abortion is a proper option five minutes from birth is not to say that a woman does not have the right to abort at that time. She does.

Also (for Peter), the issue is not----when the fetus becomes a human being (it is a human fetus)----but when, as has been said by others, the fact of independence occurs----the misnamed "miracle" of birth. Practically all people who argue against late-term abortions dismiss this vitally important fact of independence, which ultimately leads them to dismiss individual rights

[Ed from OC 0]

There is some confusion here. It is not a baby which is five minutes away from birth; it is a fetus which is five minutes away from becoming a baby. The baby is not separated from the mother; the fetus, in separating from the mother, becomes a baby---an independent human being.

I think you're splitting hairs. Fetus = baby in the womb in common parlance.

Also, to say that you do not think abortion is a proper option five minutes from birth is not to say that a woman does not have the right to abort at that time. She does.

That's debatable, which is my point about it being a grey area. The pro-abortion argument is based on physical independence, but that doesn't entitle one to drop the context, such as the fact that medical science can allow a nearly-born fetus/baby to live.

Think about it this way: a moment before leaving the mother, the mother could have the right to kill the fetus/baby; a moment after, the same action would be murder.

Overall, keep in mind that the argument for abortion isn't shaped by marginal issues such as this one, but rather looking for the case for individual rights for men in the normal case, then looking at the nature of a fetus and seeing that the aspects of men which give rise to the need for rights doesn't apply. What's clear is that an early-term fetus is not entitled to rights. Trying to argue over details in marginal issues is a distraction from the essential argument.

In any case, I don't care enough about this aspect of the abortion issue to discuss it further.