Abortion

[CodyD 0]

I understand Ayn Rand's view on abortion, and I agree with 9/10 of it. The only part that I doubt is that she seems(it is not explicitly stated, but can be inferred) that the life of the baby begins when it leaves the mother. However, it is obviously self-aware shortly before this, but how far back does it begin?

Now, as a zygote, it is merely a mass of protoplasm-no self-awareness, no conciousness, and therefore has no rights, merely their potential as Ayn Rand says. This I entirely agree with, and it's abortion is the mother's decision. But, what of the times when the fetus has developed? When does self-awareness start? If the child is terribly deformed(such as the instances when no brain develops) or if it would kill the mother in birth, the babies awareness is irrelevance-it is the mother's body, it is her choice, it is her life. However, in instances other than this, can it be considered moral? What if self-awareness has already begun, and abortion would kill the baby, taking away its right to life. What is to be said of this?

[Rose Lake 0]

An entity that is an actual part of an individual human life, is not yet an individual and does not have the rights of an individual. New born babies are not self-aware, yet they have rights. So self-awareness is not the issue. The issue is the life/rights of an individual. And the only individual in the case is the mother.

[Gideon Reich 0]

In the October 1968 issue of The Objectivist, Ayn Rand wrote:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

(emphasis in original).

You may be referring to this article when you write that you can "infer" that the "life of the baby begins when it leaves the mother." I think the issue of self-awareness may be scientifically debatable, however, I'll leave the science to the more scientifically informed. You have to distinguish two issues: The morality of abortion and its legality. It may be immoral to have a specific abortion in a certain context. It ought always to be legal because until a separate, individual, actual entity exists, no rights can be assigned to it. The only right in question is the right of the mother to her life. I hope you can see why this is. Rights are "moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context." The embryo or fetus exist in no conceivable social context. They are integral parts of the woman's body for the duration of the pregnancy and biologically dependent on her body's organs for their continued existence. It is the woman that exists in a social context and deserves to have her rights respected and that includes the right to control the functions of her body. You see, for legal purposes, only one individual ought to be recognized when the law deals with a pregnant woman. There can be no such right as the right of a potential human being (a fetus or an embryo) to continued presence inside the woman's body. The potential exists in the woman's body by permission -- a permission that may be legally terminated at any point in the pregnancy. Once the baby is born, a separate individual (albeit undeveloped) human being exists with a right to have its life protected but not before birth.

But now returning to your point about morality -- this depends on the context. Any irrational action is to that extent immoral. If a woman is apathetic for the first 7 months and decides randomly to have an abortion in the 8th that would certainly be an immoral action but not because it would amount to "taking away its right to life" -- there is no such right. I would argue, however, that there is some value to potential life, assuming it wasn't the result of rape, and particularly if its development is advanced and thus such abortions should never be taken on casually or irrationally. In addition, a late term abortion is a surgery and not just a matter of taking pills and thus involves certain risks to the woman as well. Thus, I think a woman who irrationally chooses to abort her fetus in the third trimester without any just cause is immoral and ought to be condemned. This is somewhat analogous to people who torture animals for kicks -- such is not the behaviour of a moral, pro-life (in the Objectivist sense) individual but of a nihilistic destructive person.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I understand Ayn Rand's view on abortion, and I agree with 9/10 of it.  The only part that I doubt is that she seems(it is not explicitly stated, but can be inferred) that the life of the baby begins when it leaves the mother.  However, it is obviously self-aware shortly before this, but how far back does it begin?

←

First, what do you mean by "self-aware"?

Second, why do you believe that it is obvious that a baby is "self-aware" before birth? If we are discussing abortion philosophically, the only tools we have are plain observation, thinking, and logic. How do you use those tools to reach the conclusion that a fetus is "self-aware"?

When I see a pregnant woman -- perhaps in a bikini at a beach! -- I see only one person. I certainly can't see that the fetus is "self-aware."

[CodyD 0]

I realize this is a pathetic attempt, but it reacts to things the mother does. Kicking(although most times random), can be caused by the motehr doing things.

I am understanding the point as to why they don't have any rights. I didn't see why, based upon Objectivist ethics, why it would still be considered moral to abort a baby in say, the 8th month. Reich had a point that it is irrational, and therefore contradicting Objectivism to a degree. It makes much clearer sense now. Much Thanks.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I didn't see why, based upon Objectivist ethics, why it would still be considered moral to abort a baby in say, the 8th month.

←

It could be moral to abort a fetus in the ninth month, depending on the context.

Much as religious people make a big deal about "partial birth" -- i.e., very late term -- abortions, very few of them are actually performed. There are only a few dozen every year and almost all of them are done to save the life of the mother due to conditions, like preeclampsia, occuring late in pregnancy.

[Rose Lake 0]

An entity that is an actual part of an individual human life, is not yet an individual and does not have the rights of an individual. New born babies are not self-aware, yet they have rights. So self-awareness is not the issue. The issue is the life/rights of an individual. And the only individual in the case is the mother.

←

To be accurate, in the above statement, 'mother' should be changed to 'pregnant woman.'

And I would like to thank Betsy for making her point about the actual facts regarding late-term abortions, which is the point I would have raised next. It is an irreplaceable value to be 'surrounded' (metaphorically speaking) by rational people, who think to bring up the relevant points.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

In post 4, I asked for philosophically available evidence that obviously a fetus is "self-aware."

I realize this is a pathetic attempt, but it reacts to things the mother does.  Kicking(although most times random), can be caused by the motehr doing things.

If I sit down, cross my legs, and strike the area below my knee cap with the edge of my palm, my lower leg kicks out. Does that prove my knee is "self-aware"?

I didn't see why, based upon Objectivist ethics, why it would still be considered moral to abort a baby in say, the 8th month.  Reich had a point that it is irrational, and therefore contradicting Objectivism to a degree.  It makes much clearer sense now.  Much Thanks.

←

In the first place. until birth a woman carries a fetus, not a "baby." Calling a fetus a "baby" is a trick the anti-abortionists use to insinuate the false idea that the fetus has rights. I hope you won't fall for their tricks.

In the second place, did Gideon Reich actually say that 8th-month abortion is immoral (always) -- or that it is immoral because of ethical failures of some women who undergo that procedure? There is a big difference between the two positions.

Third, I don't understand how something can contradict Objectivism "to a degree." Do you mean that late-term abortion contradicts some principles of Objectivism but not others? If so, which principles do you believe late-term abortion contradicts -- and which principles does it apply?

[CodyD 0]

YesYes, he said it would be moral if to save the mother's life. That I entirely agree upon.

It contradicts it as it is unreasonable and irrational in the case that it is merely a whim(why someone would have that whim, I do not know)and may hurt the mother in the abortion process. This contradicts with the fact that it is said to be okay to have late-term abortions. However, if you look at it close enough, it makes sense and it doesn't contradict. A superficial look can open all sorts of arguments, but when someone(me) looks close enough, it makes sense and is rational and moral.

[RayK 0]

I think what Burgess is stating in his post, (Burgess, correct me if I am wrong) is that an Objectivist priniciple can not contradict another. A person that applies Objectivism might contradict themselves, but a principle can not be contradicting to another. This is one of the great things about Objectivism, in that all the way down it is non-contradictary.

Remember that you are the fianl judge on your values. To act on a whim is to contradict your ethics/values. Objectivism does not tell you what to value, only that the standard of value is life. That which enhances mans life is the good, but to be or act good takes long-term thinking, not a whim.

Ray K

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

Objectivism does not tell you what to value, only that the standard of value is life.

←

I agree with your other points, Ray, but I would like to expand on this one.

A philosophy is a set of concepts and principles that answer the most basic questions about life -- answers to which should apply to everyone, everywhere, and at all times.

Example questions are: What is the basic nature of the world I live in? (Metaphysics) How can I know about the world? (Epistemology) What should I do about it? (Ethics) Since we have so much to gain from living in society, what is the best way to organize that society? (Politics) And how can I keep all these basic principles in mind in a form that I can grasp as a whole? (Aesthetics)

The answers to those questions apply to everyone. Philosophy, in this sense, is the universal science. The philosophy of Ayn Rand, Objectivism, does say what all individuals should value alike: Reason, purpose, and self-esteem. Those are philosophical values. I value them, so they are also my personal values.

Further, I have values which may be mine alone -- particular friends, a particular central purpose in life, and particular leisure activities. These are personal values too, but exclusively personal values, that is, they need not apply to others who will choose their own friends, careers, and leisure activities.

So, a philosophy does tell us what to value -- philosophically. Other personal values are a matter of inidividual choice within the context of our philosophical values -- all weighed by the standard of life.

[RayK 0]

I will try and be more precise here.

Objectivst Ethics tells us that the standard of values is life. Objectivist Metaphysics and Objectivist Epistemology are needed before you can even come to the idea of values. So the Philosophy of Objectivism tells us that there would be no such thing as value if there was no life. So are obvious standard is life, without it there would be nothing left for one to choose as a value. The rest is up to the individual to choose themselves. To quote John Galt, "Value is that which one acts to gain and keep..." So values mean choices of that which one seeks to gain. What is it that one seeks to gain can only be answered by the individual.

My life is limited, which I know by a proper metaphysics, so I must limit those entities I choose to achieve. Also, my goals to achieve values must be tied to reality. This I have learned through reason by applying a proper epistemology. So yes, I need the two proceeding branches of Objectivist Philosophy, but they only tell me that I need values, not what to value.

I hope this clarifies my point.

[RayK 0]

Burgess,

As I was re-thinking my last post I had a chance to let my sub-conscious work out some ideas. (I will start a new post if needed, but I hope not.)

In Dr. Gary Hull's lecture, "Metaphysical Value Judgements", He states (paraphrasing), that these value judgements are more important and set are ethical value judgements. So I think we are discussing two different types of value judgements, metaphysical and ethical. One, metaphysical where philosophy will tell you what to value. An example, a benevolent world or a malevolent one. Second, an ethical judgement where you must decide for yourself what to value. Such as choosing what career path to follow. The latter example can only be choosen by an individual.

I think this is where there might have been a disagreement. If needed I am willing to take this up on a different post since we have moved away from abortion.

Ray K