Ayn Rand on Abortion

[B. Royce 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.

No. When "people are put on life support" they are already people. The support is supporting their individual (rights active) lives.

[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.

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

No, Phil. No typo. See my reply to piz.

[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

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.

No they don't. A newborn infant has one quarter the brain tissue possessed by an adult. There is simply not enough brain there to function as a human mind. The brain is the one organ of the body that is incomplete a birth.

See the term neonate. Humans come half-baked from the oven. This is necessary to permit the head of the infant to pass through the vaginal opening of the mother. Human infants are born underdeveloped and one thing they lack is the means to reason. This is not a philosophical matter, this is a matter of human anatomy and physiology.

See

http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA499361.html

ruveyn

[piz 0]

A newborn infant has one quarter the brain tissue possessed by an adult. There is simply not enough brain there to function as a human mind. The brain is the one organ of the body that is incomplete a birth.

An 8-pound baby has 1/25 the total tissue possessed by a 200-pound adult. So what? This "argument" is ridiculous.

There's no need for you to reply to my other post in this thread - after everything of yours that I've read, I no longer care to discuss anything with you.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Human infants are born underdeveloped and one thing they lack is the means to reason. This is not a philosophical matter, this is a matter of human anatomy and physiology.

So what? A sleeping man cannot reason either. Human infants are human beings with rational potential -- and that is where their rights come from.

Before you argue this point further, I suggest you read Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" which is in both The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Both in this discussion and on other threads where you have stated the view that rights exist by permission, you seem to be out of sync with the Objectivist position on the origin of rights.

If you still disagree with Ayn Rand's position, we should discuss it on a separate thread.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

No. When "people are put on life support" they are already people. The support is supporting their individual (rights active) lives.

Yes, I think that is right. I agree with you. But that means it is not a question of independence or dependence. I agree with Betsy (in a post after the one I am quoting above) that the issue is the ability, and potential ability, to exercise reason. But then that leads me to think that certainly an infant in an incubator rather than a womb has rights and is a human life. (Clearly if someone came in and killed all babies in an incubator we would call that murder, wouldn't we?) If that is the case, does it matter if we kill them when they are in the mother's womb? Their abilities are the same in both cases -- as is their potential. I do think with the case of the infant in the womb, the mother does have some rights -- so dont misunderstand me to say that she does not. But I dont think she has the right to take a life unless that life is threatening her life -- and not in the case when it is threatening something less, whether it be convenience or something else.

[B. Royce 0]

No. When "people are put on life support" they are already people. The support is supporting their individual (rights active) lives.

Yes, I think that is right. I agree with you. But that means it is not a question of independence or dependence. I agree with Betsy (in a post after the one I am quoting above) that the issue is the ability, and potential ability, to exercise reason. But then that leads me to think that certainly an infant in an incubator rather than a womb has rights and is a human life. (Clearly if someone came in and killed all babies in an incubator we would call that murder, wouldn't we?) If that is the case, does it matter if we kill them when they are in the mother's womb? Their abilities are the same in both cases -- as is their potential. I do think with the case of the infant in the womb, the mother does have some rights -- so dont misunderstand me to say that she does not. But I dont think she has the right to take a life unless that life is threatening her life -- and not in the case when it is threatening something less, whether it be convenience or something else.

There are no babies in mother's wombs; there are no infants in incubators. There are fetuses in pregnant women's wombs. If someone other than the owner killed an incubated fetus he would be violating the owner's rights. You should do yourself a favor, step back, take your time, write a paper about abortion, and make sure you are using terms consistently. I mean this in good will, not to put you down.

[Brad Aisa 0]

There are several steps that must be made to formulate this issue in its entirety.

First, you need to form the concept "rights" in the context of normal adult human relations. This is the overwhelmingly most important context, and the one of most philosophic and political interest. (As Betsy has mentioned, Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" explains this in detail.)

The question of children and then special cases (the insane, the mentally handicapped, etc.) is a secondary, derivative issue. This also requires the addition of a separate legal concept of guardianship. But in ALL cases, the issue at question is how volitional beings who INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER and whose VOLUNTARY actions can potentially conflict with our own, should treat each other, in morality, and in law.

One can certainly quibble and debate with the waning applicability of the context as we approach (backwards) the moment of birth. But frankly, the waning applicability of many of these notions about social context and interaction only UNDERCUTS arguments for "fetal rights", rather than bolstering them.

I would say that just-born infant rights exist as a consequence of a benevolent application backwards of the principle of rights to full adults, conditioned by the fact that at least the context of an independently acting entity exists.

In addition, a good test of the validity of something is tests of contradiction. The adult (and child) formulation of rights does not lead to contradictions--as long as each party respects the rights of the others, there are no either/or contradictions. But a fetus is part of a woman's body--suddenly, here right to make decisions about he body, ney to OWN her body, are suddenly plagued with hosts of contradictions, including more extreme cases such as if her life is in jeopardy. When is it possible that a decision about life and death is either/or with two independent beings?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

No. When "people are put on life support" they are already people. The support is supporting their individual (rights active) lives.

Yes, I think that is right. I agree with you. But that means it is not a question of independence or dependence. I agree with Betsy (in a post after the one I am quoting above) that the issue is the ability, and potential ability, to exercise reason. But then that leads me to think that certainly an infant in an incubator rather than a womb has rights and is a human life. (Clearly if someone came in and killed all babies in an incubator we would call that murder, wouldn't we?) If that is the case, does it matter if we kill them when they are in the mother's womb? Their abilities are the same in both cases -- as is their potential. I do think with the case of the infant in the womb, the mother does have some rights -- so dont misunderstand me to say that she does not. But I dont think she has the right to take a life unless that life is threatening her life -- and not in the case when it is threatening something less, whether it be convenience or something else.

There are no babies in mother's wombs; there are no infants in incubators. There are fetuses in pregnant women's wombs. If someone other than the owner killed an incubated fetus he would be violating the owner's rights. You should do yourself a favor, step back, take your time, write a paper about abortion, and make sure you are using terms consistently. I mean this in good will, not to put you down.

I appreciate the call to be careful about terminology. How would you define an infant? I always thought that was the common term used once a fetus is out of a mother's womb (though I honestly dont know the scientific term). And do you then see fetuses (is that the correct plural?) and even ______ in an incubator as property?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

There are several steps that must be made to formulate this issue in its entirety.

First, you need to form the concept "rights" in the context of normal adult human relations. This is the overwhelmingly most important context, and the one of most philosophic and political interest. (As Betsy has mentioned, Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" explains this in detail.)

The question of children and then special cases (the insane, the mentally handicapped, etc.) is a secondary, derivative issue. This also requires the addition of a separate legal concept of guardianship. But in ALL cases, the issue at question is how volitional beings who INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER and whose VOLUNTARY actions can potentially conflict with our own, should treat each other, in morality, and in law.

One can certainly quibble and debate with the waning applicability of the context as we approach (backwards) the moment of birth. But frankly, the waning applicability of many of these notions about social context and interaction only UNDERCUTS arguments for "fetal rights", rather than bolstering them.

I would say that just-born infant rights exist as a consequence of a benevolent application backwards of the principle of rights to full adults, conditioned by the fact that at least the context of an independently acting entity exists.

In addition, a good test of the validity of something is tests of contradiction. The adult (and child) formulation of rights does not lead to contradictions--as long as each party respects the rights of the others, there are no either/or contradictions. But a fetus is part of a woman's body--suddenly, here right to make decisions about he body, ney to OWN her body, are suddenly plagued with hosts of contradictions, including more extreme cases such as if her life is in jeopardy. When is it possible that a decision about life and death is either/or with two independent beings?

Very thoughtful post. I agree with you on the rights issue. And I think it is a good point about the conflict of rights issue. But then how do you address the viable fetus, that can be removed from the womb and grow up to be a healthy adult, without any more harm to the mother than an abortion? In that case I dont see a conflict of rights. The right of the fetus/baby can be fulfilled, as can the right of the mother -- unless we think in this case the mother has the right to kill. Now if the pregnancy or pending birth threatens the life of the mother, then the mother can kill the fetus/baby -- this is what we call among adults the right to self-defense. Does that make sense?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

But then how do you address the viable fetus, that can be removed from the womb and grow up to be a healthy adult, without any more harm to the mother than an abortion?

It all comes down to how the fetus is removed from the womb. Since it is the mother's womb, she is the only one who can properly decide.

Now if the pregnancy or pending birth threatens the life of the mother, then the mother can kill the fetus/baby -- this is what we call among adults the right to self-defense.

I don't see that as the legal justification for very late term abortions, but it is generally the case. Less than 100 of them are performed every year and almost all of them for life-threatening conditions caused by continuing the pregnancy such as preeclampsia.

[B. Royce 0]

If the fetus had individual rights, then it would have the right to be in the womb and to come out when it was ready. To take it out of the womb, even for medical purposes, would be to violate its rights. One has no right to force a man to see a doctor.

[darren 0]

I don't see that as the legal justification for very late term abortions, but it is generally the case. Less than 100 of them are performed every year and almost all of them for life-threatening conditions caused by continuing the pregnancy such as preeclampsia.

Is the inducement of labor for life-threatening conditions considered a late-term abortion? If it happens at a time when there is no chance for the child to survive?

[Paul's Here 0]

If the fetus had individual rights, then it would have the right to be in the womb and to come out when it was ready. To take it out of the womb, even for medical purposes, would be to violate its rights. One has no right to force a man to see a doctor.

Excellent point I hadn't ever thought of. If someone wants to stretch the meaning of rights to apply to fetuses, then if the concept is to actually mean anything, then the social policy should be to keep the fetus in the womb until it wants to come out when it is good and ready. We should give the woman drugs to prevent labor from occurring.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

If the fetus had individual rights, then it would have the right to be in the womb and to come out when it was ready. To take it out of the womb, even for medical purposes, would be to violate its rights. One has no right to force a man to see a doctor.

So.... we cant force a child to see a doctor?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

But then how do you address the viable fetus, that can be removed from the womb and grow up to be a healthy adult, without any more harm to the mother than an abortion?

It all comes down to how the fetus is removed from the womb. Since it is the mother's womb, she is the only one who can properly decide.

That is like saying that the man owns the house, so if his wife is injured and wants the medical staff to come in they cant come in. You scenario presupposes no rights to the fetus. IN which case you are right. But if the fetus has rights, then it is of course different. Again -- I dont think a woman should be forced to bring a baby to term. All I am saying is that if the woman has agreed to an invasion of her womb (i.e. an abortion) and the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb, then why should that not be required? Why should the mother care? If she can abandon the baby upon birth, as some have argued here, then she can certainly abandon it upon removal from the womb. You see, the question is not whether she has control over who can enter her womb or not -- in these scenarios she has already made that decision. The quesiton is what happens to the fetus.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

If the fetus had individual rights, then it would have the right to be in the womb and to come out when it was ready. To take it out of the womb, even for medical purposes, would be to violate its rights. One has no right to force a man to see a doctor.

And if a newborn baby had rights it should decide when to have the umbilical cord cut or not. Sorry, but this just makes no sense. We make (and allow) lots of decisions to be made for infants and children -- the sort of argument you offer above suggests that children have no rights -- or that we cant force them to see a doctor; or force them to have their umbilical cord cut; or force them to be circumcised..... etc.

[Paul's Here 0]

But then how do you address the viable fetus, that can be removed from the womb and grow up to be a healthy adult, without any more harm to the mother than an abortion?

It all comes down to how the fetus is removed from the womb. Since it is the mother's womb, she is the only one who can properly decide.

That is like saying that the man owns the house, so if his wife is injured and wants the medical staff to come in they cant come in. You scenario presupposes no rights to the fetus.

Not answering for Betsy, but there is no presupposition being made here that I can see. The fetus indeed has no rights.

IN which case you are right. But if the fetus has rights, then it is of course different.

But that it has rights not been demonstrated. So there is no basis to assume it does.

Again -- I dont think a woman should be forced to bring a baby to term. All I am saying is that if the woman has agreed to an invasion of her womb (i.e. an abortion) and the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb, then why should that not be required?

As I mentioned earlier, a point that was not responded to, if you can convince her to do that that, then fine. If not, then not. But she cannot be forced since no rights are being violated.

Why should the mother care?

It's entirely her decision, not yours or anyone else's.

If she can abandon the baby upon birth, as some have argued here, then she can certainly abandon it upon removal from the womb. You see, the question is not whether she has control over who can enter her womb or not -- in these scenarios she has already made that decision. The quesiton is what happens to the fetus.

Who suggested abandonment? The real question is are you willing to force the woman to act against her decision as to what happens to the fetus?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

But then how do you address the viable fetus, that can be removed from the womb and grow up to be a healthy adult, without any more harm to the mother than an abortion?

It all comes down to how the fetus is removed from the womb. Since it is the mother's womb, she is the only one who can properly decide.

That is like saying that the man owns the house, so if his wife is injured and wants the medical staff to come in they cant come in. You scenario presupposes no rights to the fetus.

Not answering for Betsy, but there is no presupposition being made here that I can see. The fetus indeed has no rights.

IN which case you are right. But if the fetus has rights, then it is of course different.

But that it has rights not been demonstrated. So there is no basis to assume it does.

Again -- I dont think a woman should be forced to bring a baby to term. All I am saying is that if the woman has agreed to an invasion of her womb (i.e. an abortion) and the fetus can be kept alive outside the womb, then why should that not be required?

As I mentioned earlier, a point that was not responded to, if you can convince her to do that that, then fine. If not, then not. But she cannot be forced since no rights are being violated.

Why should the mother care?

It's entirely her decision, not yours or anyone else's.

If she can abandon the baby upon birth, as some have argued here, then she can certainly abandon it upon removal from the womb. You see, the question is not whether she has control over who can enter her womb or not -- in these scenarios she has already made that decision. The quesiton is what happens to the fetus.

Who suggested abandonment? The real question is are you willing to force the woman to act against her decision as to what happens to the fetus?

No more or less than I would "force" her not to kill her infant child; or abandon the child; etc.

On the rights issue arguments above, this is all getting very circular. The question on the table is whether in fact a fetus has rights. Betsy argues that because the mother owns her womb, the fetus has no rights. That is a formulation that assumes, but does not prove, no rights. Earlier she said that the issue is whether the person/child has the potential to become a rational being -- this is the rationale to say that infants have rights. Thus my question -- a fetus that is viable outside the womb is no different than an infant outside the womb with respect to this. The easier case is one second before birth and one second after birth. I think passage through the birth canal is an arbitrary and irrational place to draw the line. I would use science and rationality to construct the proper line between something that has no rights and something that does. That seems consistent with the arguments most others are making here -- there is this odd resistance however to follow that logic to its natural conclusion.

[JohnRgt 0]

-- there is this odd resistance however to follow that logic to its natural conclusion.

The resistance stems from the fact that until the fetus passes through the canal, the fetus is a parasite, ie, a part of the woman's body. You and I have no more legal say over her fetus than we do over her second kidney.

[B. Royce 0]

If the fetus had individual rights, then it would have the right to be in the womb and to come out when it was ready. To take it out of the womb, even for medical purposes, would be to violate its rights. One has no right to force a man to see a doctor.

And if a newborn baby had rights it should decide when to have the umbilical cord cut or not. Sorry, but this just makes no sense. We make (and allow) lots of decisions to be made for infants and children -- the sort of argument you offer above suggests that children have no rights -- or that we cant force them to see a doctor; or force them to have their umbilical cord cut; or force them to be circumcised..... etc.

No it shouldn't. It's not the one doing the cutting. Parents make decisions for their child because this new, immature individual, which they have brought into the world as an independent entity is their responsibility. Before the birth of her fetus into babyhood the pregnant woman has the right to decide if she wants to bring a baby into the world or not. It is as simple as that.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

There are no babies in mother's wombs; there are no infants in incubators.

But there are human beings genetically distinct from the mother in mother's womb.

BTW the first stop for a neonate - a new born human infant - is the incubator* if there are signs of natal jaundice. If signs of jaundice occur the neonate is subject to a limited amount of u.v. radiation to correct the condition.

* in a modern birthing facility

Riddle: what is the substantial differences between an oak sapling and an oak tree? Between an acorn and an oak sapling?

ruveyn

[B. Royce 0]

There are no babies in mother's wombs; there are no infants in incubators.

But there are human beings genetically distinct from the mother in mother's womb.

BTW the first stop for a neonate - a new born human infant - is the incubator* if there are signs of natal jaundice. If signs of jaundice occur the neonate is subject to a limited amount of u.v. radiation to correct the condition.

* in a modern birthing facility

Riddle: what is the substantial differences between an oak sapling and an oak tree? Between an acorn and an oak sapling?

ruveyn

The difference between an acorn and an oak sapling is such that you know that an oak sapling is not an acorn.

Since you refuse to acknowledge the great significance of being outside the womb, as opposed to being inside the womb, there is nothing more to discuss with you. You are lost among the facts and details of science, as in a dark wood, hidden from the light of philosophy.

[ruveyn ben yosef 0]

Since you refuse to acknowledge the great significance of being outside the womb, as opposed to being inside the womb, there is nothing more to discuss with you. You are lost among the facts and details of science, as in a dark wood, hidden from the light of philosophy.

I pointed out being a neonate is one stage in the progress from fertilized ovum to dead human. I am not lost. I am among the -facts-. When one is in a forest he is in among the trees.

And the details of science, as you put it, are what placed your computer keyboard in front of you, along with the effort of many and the economic system we all enjoy.

May I offer you a friendly piece of advice (free of charge, b.t.w.). Try not to make general statements that can be refuted by a counterexample. Or if you do make such general statements and are offered a specific counterexample, do not insult the one who offered it. Rather, you should thank him for the correction. We all make mistakes and one of the glorious benefits of being in society is that corrections are forthcoming without cost or harm. If you are about to step off a curb and someone yells -watch out for that car coming around the corner- do you heed the advice, or do you tell the person who warned you that he is all tied up in minute details and you no longer wish to discuss traffic with him any longer.

Philosophy is marvelous but so are good manners.

ruveyn

[RayK 0]

And the details of science, as you put it, are what placed your computer keyboard in front of you, along with the effort of many and the economic system we all enjoy.

With all due respect, maybe you should learn that without a rational philosophy an understanding of science would not have even come about. And when a rational philosohy is discarded we move in the opposite direction back toward the caves and your science will crumble with it. Philosophy is a fundamental study of the nature of existence, of man, and man's relationship to existence.