Ayn Rand on Abortion

[B. Royce 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.

But, fact that a medical doctor could "allow a nearly-born fetus/baby to live" would, rightly, be dependent upon the pregnant woman's choice to allow the doctor to take such an action.

A moment before leaving the pregnant woman, she has the right to not let her fetus become her baby. A moment later and she would have a baby, which she could not rightfully kill. The fundamental fact of birth is not a marginal issue. It is the essential issue, which no amount of scientific progress, ability or knowledge can supercede.

What is clear is that no fetus is entitled to rights.

[B. Royce 0]

I might add that it is the discussion of scientific knowledge and ability which often leads the discussion away from philosophical principle, though it need not necessarily do so. Science is not God; philosophy is.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

What do people think? Does that improve the McCain ticket? She seems to be an anti-abortion, creationist wacko. The other tidbits I was able to find are rather good. She's easier on the eye than any other politician I can recall....

I know that I am probably in the minority here, but I think she very much improves the ticket. First, she is pro-life/anti-abortion, which will appeal to many people, including me. (of course it will also get some of the wacky Jesus types, but that is the nature of the pro-life movement I am afraid). Second, she is a woman. And I frankly would rather have a woman in the white house than an inexperienced person who comes out of the whole Islamo facist movement. Third, she is young and attractive. I know some will take issue with this, but I think she will attract many men who dont pay attention to much else (and thus bring votes) and also, frankly, will provide some good fashion dignity back into the white house (Hillary -- ugh; Laura -- borrrrriiiiiingggg!!!!)

[PhilO 0]

First, she is pro-life/anti-abortion, which will appeal to many people, including me.

Anti-abortion is anti-life. (The life that counts the most, the mother, who owns her own body.) On what basis are you anti-abortion?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

First, she is pro-life/anti-abortion, which will appeal to many people, including me.

Anti-abortion is anti-life. (The life that counts the most, the mother, who owns her own body.) On what basis are you anti-abortion?

Hmmmm, not sure I understand how being anti abortion is anti life -- the only situation in which that might be the case is when the life of the mother is actually at risk.

I am pro life based upon preserving......life. I really think it is arbitrary to distinguish between 8 months and birth, and then 7 months, etc. I am fine with contraception, as a sperm or egg by itself cannot create, and is not part of yet, human life. I think the rherotic surrounding these issues in the popular media -- and public debate -- has distorted the issue. Thus with all due respect your assumption that preserving the life of the unborn necessarily means allowing the mother to die.

[RayK 0]

First, she is pro-life/anti-abortion, which will appeal to many people, including me.

Anti-abortion is anti-life. (The life that counts the most, the mother, who owns her own body.) On what basis are you anti-abortion?

Hmmmm, not sure I understand how being anti abortion is anti life -- the only situation in which that might be the case is when the life of the mother is actually at risk.

I am pro life based upon preserving......life. I really think it is arbitrary to distinguish between 8 months and birth, and then 7 months, etc. I am fine with contraception, as a sperm or egg by itself cannot create, and is not part of yet, human life. I think the rherotic surrounding these issues in the popular media -- and public debate -- has distorted the issue. Thus with all due respect your assumption that preserving the life of the unborn necessarily means allowing the mother to die.

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with.

If the reasons you give for supporting the Republican VP candidate are your's than I would say it seems you do not understand fundamentals.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with

In all fairness, I only made Genius Aspirant aware of the existing thread a few hours ago. Since it takes a while to read all that and the abortion issue is hardly self-evident, let's give them time to read and think about it.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

First, she is pro-life/anti-abortion, which will appeal to many people, including me.

Anti-abortion is anti-life. (The life that counts the most, the mother, who owns her own body.) On what basis are you anti-abortion?

Hmmmm, not sure I understand how being anti abortion is anti life -- the only situation in which that might be the case is when the life of the mother is actually at risk.

I am pro life based upon preserving......life. I really think it is arbitrary to distinguish between 8 months and birth, and then 7 months, etc. I am fine with contraception, as a sperm or egg by itself cannot create, and is not part of yet, human life. I think the rherotic surrounding these issues in the popular media -- and public debate -- has distorted the issue. Thus with all due respect your assumption that preserving the life of the unborn necessarily means allowing the mother to die.

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with.

If the reasons you give for supporting the Republican VP candidate are your's than I would say it seems you do not understand fundamentals.

We clearly disagree on the issue of abortion. I actually think it is a difficult thing to determine when life begins. Based upon my understanding of the science and biology of it, I am more willing to accept that life begins at conception. I think then the issue is what one does when the life of the mother is at risk -- and frankly, in that case I would preserve the mother's life first -- in part because she chose to bring a new life into the world and should not have to pay the ultimate price for that choice. But if her life is not at risk, then I dont see why she should not be responsible for her own actions (i.e. getting pregnant) and have to bring the child to term. But again, I know this is a very emotionally-laden topic, and I understand how people may have different positions on it. And of course I have the uncomfortable reality of having a bunch of religious fanatics on my side -- ugh!

[Rational Ryan 0]

Life begins at conception, but what life? What kind of life? Many things are ALIVE, certainly, but do they have rights?

Human rights are endowed to those with a physical independence and a capacity for reason. As a fetus in the mother, a child's life is predicated on the existence of the mother, and on her maintaining her own life.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with.

Normally a fetus is quite alive. From about the 8th week on it even has a heartbeat. The question is not whether the fetus is alive, but what it is. An embryo in the early stages and a fetus in the later stage is not yet a functioning human being and does not have the capability of reason. But neither does a newborn infant.

Given the mother and the newborn infant, the mother is the one who is a functional human being and has rights for sure. If an infant has rights (a debatable matter) then the predecessor the the infant, the fetus would have just as many rights five minutes before birth (say). Neither the fetus nor the infant it becomes a few minutes later is a reasoning being.

ruveyn

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Human rights are endowed to those with a physical independence and a capacity for reason. As a fetus in the mother, a child's life is predicated on the existence of the mother, and on her maintaining her own life.

There are cases where live infants have been taken out of dead mothers. If a mother dies, there is a short time interval before the fetus dies from like of oxygen and nutrients. If the doctors are quick they can get a live baby out of a dead mother by C-sect.

This critical interval can be lengthened by keeping a brain dead mother's heart and lungs working by machine so the fetus will be supplied with oxygen.

ruveyn

[Rational Ryan 0]

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with.

Normally a fetus is quite alive. From about the 8th week on it even has a heartbeat. The question is not whether the fetus is alive, but what it is. An embryo in the early stages and a fetus in the later stage is not yet a functioning human being and does not have the capability of reason. But neither does a newborn infant.

Given the mother and the newborn infant, the mother is the one who is a functional human being and has rights for sure. If an infant has rights (a debatable matter) then the predecessor the the infant, the fetus would have just as many rights five minutes before birth (say). Neither the fetus nor the infant it becomes a few minutes later is a reasoning being.

ruveyn

Infants don't have debatable rights, since they do have the capacity for reason. They are simply at the early stage of sensation and perception, but their minds are capable of reason.

The reason a child fully formed in the womb still doesn't have rights is because, as I stated previously, it's not an independent being from the mother. Like a mother's finger, if cut off from the rest of the mother's body, it would die.

[Rational Ryan 0]

Human rights are endowed to those with a physical independence and a capacity for reason. As a fetus in the mother, a child's life is predicated on the existence of the mother, and on her maintaining her own life.

There are cases where live infants have been taken out of dead mothers. If a mother dies, there is a short time interval before the fetus dies from like of oxygen and nutrients. If the doctors are quick they can get a live baby out of a dead mother by C-sect.

This critical interval can be lengthened by keeping a brain dead mother's heart and lungs working by machine so the fetus will be supplied with oxygen.

ruveyn

You are splitting hairs on a subject. Yes, the baby can be rescued, but while the mother is alive, the child exists only as the mother sanction's it's existence. It doesn't have a right to be inside of her, to drain her of fluids.

[B. Royce 0]

If you were really for "preserving.....life" than you would be for the woman having the freedom to choose what she wants to do with her life as she is the only one living. But, it seems you do not understand this as there are already 3 pages worth of explanation that it seems you do not agree with.

Normally a fetus is quite alive. From about the 8th week on it even has a heartbeat. The question is not whether the fetus is alive, but what it is. An embryo in the early stages and a fetus in the later stage is not yet a functioning human being and does not have the capability of reason. But neither does a newborn infant.

Given the mother and the newborn infant, the mother is the one who is a functional human being and has rights for sure. If an infant has rights (a debatable matter) then the predecessor the the infant, the fetus would have just as many rights five minutes before birth (say). Neither the fetus nor the infant it becomes a few minutes later is a reasoning being.

ruveyn

No. When the fetus, no matter at what stage of development, is not physically outside the pregnant woman, it has no rights. Period. When it is in an incubator, which has taken the place of a womb, it has no rights. Period. For those who cannot grasp, or who downplay, that most fundamental fact of physical separation, all discussion is a waste of time. Period.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Given the mother and the newborn infant, the mother is the one who is a functional human being and has rights for sure. If an infant has rights (a debatable matter) then the predecessor the the infant, the fetus would have just as many rights five minutes before birth (say). Neither the fetus nor the infant it becomes a few minutes later is a reasoning being.

Perhaps not, but it is a human being, and thus has rights.

(It is human from the moment of conception and a being from the moment of birth. Please see the prior postings as to why, since I would rather not repeat myself.)

[System Builder 0]

The issue of the actual versus the potential is featured prominently in the Objectivist defense of a woman's right to abortion. The somewhat contrasting concept of "viability outside the womb" has been offered (as I believe the U.S. Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade) as one possible criterion for the dividing line between the right to abortion and a right to life for a fetus still in the womb. Others (and Objectivism) point out that until actual separation, a pregnant woman is a single entity, not two separate entities, and the only rights that could apply would be the rights of the pregnant woman.

To make the distinction between potential and actual more clear in comparing a fetus (at various stages) and a newborn baby, questions such as the following may be helpful:

1. Does the entity need oxygen? If so, how does it get it? Does it need to breathe? Is it even capable of breathing while still in the womb?

2. Does the entity need nourishment? If so, how does it get it?

3. Does the entity need to digest its nourishment?

4. Does the entity generate any bodily wastes which it needs to get rid of? If so, how does it do that?

5. Is the entity able to see, hear, smell, taste, and touch or feel (physically)? If so, to what extent and with what limitations?

6. Is the entity capable of expressing physical or emotional responses by making sounds of any kind?

7. It has also been noted in this thread that even a newborn baby's consciousness needs to develop much further to reach a fully "rational animal" stage of functioning. But is that developmental process even capable of starting before the fetus is physically separated from the mother and able to start looking out at the world independently?

The most common motive for opposing a woman's right to abortion is the religious view that "we are all God's children," that only God can decide when and how to take a human life (whether still in the womb or not), and that "mere mortals" should not try to "play God." (Essentially the same argument is often invoked against stem cell research, also.) During the Enlightenment Era, with its emphasis on the great value of reason and the need for rational beings to have freedom of action in social relations (freedom from physical oppression by others), America's Founders tried to ground the historically new and revolutionary idea of individual rights on a religious metaphysical base, which was the best that they could offer at that stage in man's philosophical development. They held that there was a Creator, that man is a product of the Creator, and that it is self-evident that the Creator endowed man with certain rights, including the right to life -- and self-evident that all of man's rights are inalienable (by man's nature, as originally established by the Creator).

Historically, it took Ayn Rand to identify the actual implicit meaning of man's rights and their foundation in reality and reason, rejecting any lingering "intrinsicist" assumptions that a right to life follows automatically from the mere fact of being alive and genetically human. In fact, the popular formula -- alive + human = right to life -- requires qualification to differentiate it from applying to every living cell in a woman's body. The most obvious qualification is that a right to life can only apply to living cells that are capable of developing into an independent human being. Objectivism asks: why must the applicability of rights begin with the potential to develop into fully human form, particularly if it means undermining or completely nullifying the rights of the woman whose body the cells are part of? Surely there can't be any possible rational justification for insistence on the potential during the early stages of a pregnancy or at conception, and later stage pregnancies are open to this question as well. Insistence on the potential rather than the actual as the starting point for a right to life is identified in Objectivist philosophy as invalid, as others in this thread have already pointed out.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Life begins at conception, but what life? What kind of life? Many things are ALIVE, certainly, but do they have rights?

Human rights are endowed to those with a physical independence and a capacity for reason. As a fetus in the mother, a child's life is predicated on the existence of the mother, and on her maintaining her own life.

Oh yes -- we are definitely in agreement on the natural rights argument -- endowed on those with reason. The question really is what is reason, and who is thus capable of having those rights. Certainly children have fewer (or perhaps one might say different) rights than an adult. But that does not mean that they dont have rights, and that they dont have reason.

On being dependent on the existence of the mother -- science has surpassed us from our religious assumptions about what life is and when it begins. Fetuses from a very early age can survive outside the mother. As someone who follows objectivism, and thus science and objective reality, this becomes quite crucial for me.

[Brad Aisa 0]

I am pro life based upon preserving......life. I really think it is arbitrary to distinguish between 8 months and birth, and then 7 months, etc. I am fine with contraception, as a sperm or egg by itself cannot create, and is not part of yet, human life. I think the rherotic surrounding these issues in the popular media -- and public debate -- has distorted the issue. Thus with all due respect your assumption that preserving the life of the unborn necessarily means allowing the mother to die.

But the actual issue is not whether it is good to value living things or not. I would say all good people value living things, whether it is plant, animal, human, or fetus.

The actual question is, "What are rights, and is this concept applicable to a fetus living inside its host mother?"

Rights are a social and legal principle--they are the legally sanctioned freedom of actions that people need in order to live as fully human beings (rational, productive beings) in a social situation with other people.

A fetus is not an independent entity in a social existence; quite the contrary: although it is indeed alive, it is only alive due to being an internal, integrated part of the host mother's biology. As such, while it has that status, it is part of her body, not a social being, and therefore the concept of rights doesn't apply.

A lot of people debate the degree to which we can call a newborn infant a "rational being". But once independent, it needs the ability to engage in the actions it needs to do to continue to survive, and its rights basically become entrusted for protection by its legal guardians until it can fully exercise them. This represents a continuum from birth to full adulthood. I cannot see any valid reason to try to create a third status somehow: i.e., not part of the mother, but not yet entity possessing rights (even if those rights are entrusted or managed by an adult guardian, as they get transferred over time to the child.)

I have known a few women who related they had abortions, and all found it traumatic. I think it is a reasonable moral cause to try to encourage unpreventable abortions to be minimized. But just as it would be an outrageous violation of individual rights to outlaw the killing of, say, some wild animal (oh, wait, we have that: the Endangered Species Act...) or plant, so to is it a violation of rights to prevent a women from exercising control over her own body in the matter of a fetus, which is a potential *legal* human, but not an actual one.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

A fetus is not an independent entity in a social existence; quite the contrary: although it is indeed alive, it is only alive due to being an internal, integrated part of the host mother's biology. As such, while it has that status, it is part of her body, not a social being, and therefore the concept of rights doesn't apply.

Neither is a newborn infant. A newborn and then a young infant is just as dependent on care givers (be they the parents or other nurturing parties) as the fetus was on the body of its biological mother.

There is a category to be formulated: Alive but not (yet) autonomous in which case its rights are -granted- and -provided- by interested other parties. This applies to fetuses and newborns and young infants. A human is (by evolution) a neonate and does not become autonomous (even by a stretch) until about the age of two when the infant can walk (if it is normal) and has the rudiments of reason (object permanence, the notion of cause/effect and abstraction ability manifested in language). Ages vary somewhat, but that is a good estimate of the developmental interval. Trust me on this: I have four children and five grandchildren so I know whereof I speak.

The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were not as sentimental as we are about the "rights" of newborns. If they looked defective and promised to be burden the were disposed of quite often. The Spartans tossed such ill fared infants over a cliff. Exposure was practiced in Athens and in many of the pre-Christian cultures, but notably not by the Jews. The Jews believed that infants over the age of 33 days had operative souls and doing away with them would be murder. The also believed that infants under 33 days were inviolate because if they survived the 33 days, they would present with operative souls. In short, no infanticide. Of the ancient peoples, the Jews were the only folks who had something approximating what we call rights and even then, not a philosophical, but a religious notion.

For the Romans, children had no rights at all. Under Roman law the father could kill his children with legal impunity. Children were the property of the father, until such time as the father approved a ceremony of autonomy at which time the child (as a young adult) assumed the status of legal autonomy.

Even in Christian Europe, infants born out of wedlock or who were too much of a burden were frequently abandoned, placed in a baby abandonment device which operated like a semi-turnstile. Such devices were maintained by the Church. The babies were often done away with, but in private and secrecy.

The idea of absolute and inherent rights is a rather late development in Western civilization. That concept did not exist (or did not exist in full) at the time of Magna Carta* (1215), but did exist in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century in parts of Europe. So somewhere in between the concept of rights, as we understand it, took form and being.

ruveyn

*Magna Carta was not intended by the Barons as a Declaration of the Rights of Man. It was a limitation on the power of a Thug King, imposed by force on said King by his Thug Subordinates. For contingent historical reasons it was the starting point for the evolution of political rights, first in England, and then by diffusion to the rest of Europe.

[Rational Ryan 0]

A fetus is not an independent entity in a social existence; quite the contrary: although it is indeed alive, it is only alive due to being an internal, integrated part of the host mother's biology. As such, while it has that status, it is part of her body, not a social being, and therefore the concept of rights doesn't apply.

Neither is a newborn infant. A newborn and then a young infant is just as dependent on care givers (be they the parents or other nurturing parties) as the fetus was on the body of its biological mother.

There is a category to be formulated: Alive but not (yet) autonomous in which case its rights are -granted- and -provided- by interested other parties. This applies to fetuses and newborns and young infants. A human is (by evolution) a neonate and does not become autonomous (even by a stretch) until about the age of two when the infant can walk (if it is normal) and has the rudiments of reason (object permanence, the notion of cause/effect and abstraction ability manifested in language). Ages vary somewhat, but that is a good estimate of the developmental interval. Trust me on this: I have four children and five grandchildren so I know whereof I speak.

The ancient Greeks, especially the Spartans, were not as sentimental as we are about the "rights" of newborns. If they looked defective and promised to be burden the were disposed of quite often. The Spartans tossed such ill fared infants over a cliff. Exposure was practiced in Athens and in many of the pre-Christian cultures, but notably not by the Jews. The Jews believed that infants over the age of 33 days had operative souls and doing away with them would be murder. The also believed that infants under 33 days were inviolate because if they survived the 33 days, they would present with operative souls. In short, no infanticide. Of the ancient peoples, the Jews were the only folks who had something approximating what we call rights and even then, not a philosophical, but a religious notion.

For the Romans, children had no rights at all. Under Roman law the father could kill his children with legal impunity. Children were the property of the father, until such time as the father approved a ceremony of autonomy at which time the child (as a young adult) assumed the status of legal autonomy.

Even in Christian Europe, infants born out of wedlock or who were too much of a burden were frequently abandoned, placed in a baby abandonment device which operated like a semi-turnstile. Such devices were maintained by the Church. The babies were often done away with, but in private and secrecy.

The idea of absolute and inherent rights is a rather late development in Western civilization. That concept did not exist (or did not exist in full) at the time of Magna Carta* (1215), but did exist in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century in parts of Europe. So somewhere in between the concept of rights, as we understand it, took form and being.

ruveyn

*Magna Carta was not intended by the Barons as a Declaration of the Rights of Man. It was a limitation on the power of a Thug King, imposed by force on said King by his Thug Subordinates. For contingent historical reasons it was the starting point for the evolution of political rights, first in England, and then by diffusion to the rest of Europe.

Your mistake continues. While the child does not currently have the ability to reason fully, he has the capacity and is quickly learning. He has the mind of a human, and therefore ought to be protected by law. He also was birthed by a mother, and that mother has a legal obligation to him, to at least give the baby away to the hospital or something.

The fundamental difference is not the ability for the capacity for reason. While in the womb, there is no difference between the child's mind while he is exiting the womb, and the child's mind after getting out of the womb. The difference is physical dependence, which is necessary for an individual to have any rights. While attached to the mother, it is quite literally part of her, and a parasite. She has every right to remove it when she sees fit. Almost all mothers see fit to do in the first trimaster.

Only 100 abortions occur in the third.

[piz 0]

If an infant has rights (a debatable matter)

No. It's not debatable. Infants have rights.

7. It has also been noted in this thread that even a newborn baby's consciousness needs to develop much further to reach a fully "rational animal" stage of functioning.

No. A newborn is fully a rational animal. His rational faculty just hasn't been fully developed yet.

Certainly children have fewer (or perhaps one might say different) rights than an adult.

No. They have the right to life, exactly the same as adults. All other rights are corollaries of or derive from that fundamental right, thus children have those rights as well. What they do not yet possess is the ability to completely and correctly exercise those rights.

A fetus is not an independent entity in a social existence; quite the contrary: although it is indeed alive, it is only alive due to being an internal, integrated part of the host mother's biology. As such, while it has that status, it is part of her body, not a social being, and therefore the concept of rights doesn't apply.

Neither is a newborn infant. A newborn and then a young infant is just as dependent on care givers (be they the parents or other nurturing parties) as the fetus was on the body of its biological mother.

There is a category to be formulated: Alive but not (yet) autonomous in which case its rights are -granted- and -provided- by interested other parties.

NO! Rights are NEVER granted! THERE IS NO THIRD CATEGORY! Children possess their rights because of their nature as human beings and not because anyone needs to grant them anything. Adults teach children how to exercise their rights, and assist them in so doing until they are able to do so for themselves.

Any position contrary to children fully possessing the same rights as adults, from the moment they are born, is based on a flawed concept of rights, if not just plain barbaric.

Specifically to Ruveyn: this insistence (here and elsewhere) that you have on claiming that rights need granting or permission flies in the face of morality. How do you support such a position?

[piz 0]

No. When the fetus, no matter at what stage of development, is not physically outside the pregnant woman, it has no rights. Period. When it is in an incubator, which has taken the place of a womb, it has no rights. Period. For those who cannot grasp, or who downplay, that most fundamental fact of physical separation, all discussion is a waste of time. Period.

Just to your point about being in an incubator (I agree with all the rest): It seems to contradict the statement following. Are you saying that that doesn't qualify as physical separation? Could you expand on that?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

I am pro life based upon preserving......life. I really think it is arbitrary to distinguish between 8 months and birth, and then 7 months, etc. I am fine with contraception, as a sperm or egg by itself cannot create, and is not part of yet, human life. I think the rherotic surrounding these issues in the popular media -- and public debate -- has distorted the issue. Thus with all due respect your assumption that preserving the life of the unborn necessarily means allowing the mother to die.

A fetus is not an independent entity in a social existence; quite the contrary: although it is indeed alive, it is only alive due to being an internal, integrated part of the host mother's biology. As such, while it has that status, it is part of her body, not a social being, and therefore the concept of rights doesn't apply.

The independence argument is an interesting one -- but does that then mean when people are put on life support, or a dialysis machine, they no longer have rights. They are dependent on machines in the same way a fetus is to a mother. And given technology today we can take a fetus out of the mother at an earlier and earlier point, thus making it look more like the elderly person on life support. It seems to me you should be against abortion if the fetus is viable outside the womb.

[PhilO 0]

No. When the fetus, no matter at what stage of development, is not physically outside the pregnant woman, it has no rights. Period. When it is in an incubator, which has taken the place of a womb, it has no rights. Period. For those who cannot grasp, or who downplay, that most fundamental fact of physical separation, all discussion is a waste of time. Period.

I am pretty sure that Brian had a typo and meant the above without the "no".

[B. Royce 0]

No. When the fetus, no matter at what stage of development, is not physically outside the pregnant woman, it has no rights. Period. When it is in an incubator, which has taken the place of a womb, it has no rights. Period. For those who cannot grasp, or who downplay, that most fundamental fact of physical separation, all discussion is a waste of time. Period.

Just to your point about being in an incubator (I agree with all the rest): It seems to contradict the statement following. Are you saying that that doesn't qualify as physical separation? Could you expand on that?

Yes, it does seem to contradict the idea of separation. The pregnant woman exercises her right to have her pre-mature fetus put into an incubator, which takes the place of, and is thus an extension of, her womb. But, on thinking this over, I see it would be correct to say that she has made her fetus a baby by the act of separation. And, although still in a womb-like atmosphere, it (he or she) now has rights. I am still not fully clear about this, for, while it is separate from her, it is not separate from everything, as a baby is.