Abortion

[Seeker of Truth 0]

First of all, I have been a member here for a while, but have refrained from posting, taking the time to learn before I pose a question.

For the most part, the Objectivist reasoning for abortion being the woman's choice makes sense to me. There is only one fault that I find with it.

If both a man and a woman willingly engage in sexual intercourse, knowing that a pregnancy could possibly result from these actions, why is the choice of whether to abort or not entirely the woman's?

Here is how I see it. If both the woman and the man decide to abort, or if both the woman and the man decide they want to keep and raise the future child, there is no problem. If the woman wants to keep and raise the future child but the man does not, again, I see no problem. Both parties involved are free to make their own choice. But what if the man wants to keep the and raise the future child, and the woman does not? Why does her choice come before his? Why does she have more rights than the man? Since both the man and the woman knew the possible consequences of intercourse, they should have equal rights in the potential life that was created.

Am I missing something besides the fact that the by the law of nature, the woman carries the fetus? I don't think it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus if she does not want to. It is her body. But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

[Bryan 0]

Am I missing something besides the fact that the by the law of nature, the woman carries the fetus? I don't think it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus if she does not want to. It is her body. But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

←

This last paragraph pretty much sums up the issue. The woman is the one who has the carry the fetus for nine months of her life, therefore it is her choice.

[Marty61 0]

Since both the man and the woman knew the possible consequences of intercourse, they should have equal rights in the potential life that was created.

←

Sounds like you are thinking only about what happens in an accidental pregnancy, i.e., when it comes by surprise. I would hope that since the "possible consequences" are real and serious, the action to be taken would be decided BEFORE intercourse.

I myself would take no chances with a man who would consider putting me through the trauma of an unwanted of pregnancy and childbirth

Would any other women here?

[RayK 0]

Seeker of Truth,

The idea of individual rights pertains to you and only you. You can not force someone to do something that they do not want, even carry your potential child. The male has no right to a potential child, because it is just that, a potential. It is the woman's body and her choice to do with it what she wants, no matter who agrees or disagress.

[Mercury 0]

[...] But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

←

[Emphasis added.]

What standard of morality are you using here and how did you arrive at it?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Am I missing something besides the fact that the by the law of nature, the woman carries the fetus? I don't think it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus if she does not want to. It is her body. But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

←

I think the problem lies with your assumption that the man has "rights to the potential child." For the man to claim such a right he would need to have made a contract with the woman wherein she agreed to delivering the child. Absent such a contract, on what basis could a man claim his right to the potential child?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

For the most part, the Objectivist reasoning for abortion being the woman's choice makes sense to me. There is only one fault that I find with it.

If both a man and a woman willingly engage in sexual intercourse, knowing that a pregnancy could possibly result from these actions, why is the choice of whether to abort or not entirely the woman's?

←

Because it IS. If a woman wants to abort, she can. If a man doesn't want her to, the only way he can stop her is by initiating physical force.

Since both the man and the woman knew the possible consequences of intercourse, they should have equal rights in the potential life that was created.

They have equal rights and responsibilities as far as the pregnancy is concerned because it is the result of their chosen actions, but only the woman has the choice (and therefore the responsibility) for the birth of a child. Of course, this situation may be modified by any other agreements, including marriage contracts, made in advance of the pregnancy and/or birth.

I don't think it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus if she does not want to. It is her body. But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

I would agree with you IF it were possible to teleport the fetus from the womb of the unwilling woman into an incubator maintained by the man who wants the child, but it isn't. There is no way for the man to get the baby without initiating physical force.

[CodyD 0]

Now, a question as to abortion in general.

Ayn Rand always said that(or something along the following lines) causes have effects. What you do will make something happen, and it is up to you to accept those consequences(This may be my own abstraction of Wishing Won't Make it So, but I think she has said something like this). Now, why are women entitled, when they have full knowledge of the risks they are having during sex, to evade its primary consequence? Now, I still agree they can abort before the end of the first trimester, as it truly is protoplasm and isn't even a potential-a potential to a potential. But, what if the child(sorry, fetus) is "awake" as the brain begins to form? Yes, I realize that it is attached to the mother, and using her body, but it doesn't have a choice. What if it actually is "living", "thinking" as you would compare to a baby not in the mother, and it really does have a life, conception? Should the mother be able to just overrule this on account that it is using her body?

A mother definitely should not have to care for it for 18 years of life-a ridiculous punishment for a few minutes of pleasure-, but that is why they can put it up for adoption. Why can't this course be pursued as opposed to abortion?

I apologize for any restated questions or poor assumptions.

[Gideon Reich 0]

Now, a question as to abortion in general.

Ayn Rand always said that(or something along the following lines) causes have effects.  What you do will make something happen, and it is up to you to accept those consequences(This may be my own abstraction of Wishing Won't Make it So, but I think she has said something like this).  Now, why are women entitled, when they have full knowledge of the risks they are having during sex, to evade its primary consequence?  Now, I still agree they can abort before the end of the first trimester, as it truly is protoplasm and isn't even a potential-a potential to a potential.  But, what if the child(sorry, fetus) is "awake" as the brain begins to form?  Yes, I realize that it is attached to the mother, and using her body, but it doesn't have a choice.  What if it actually is "living", "thinking" as you would compare to a baby not in the mother, and it really does have a life, conception?  Should the mother be able to just overrule this on account that it is using her body? 

        A mother definitely should not have to care for it for 18 years of life-a ridiculous punishment for a few minutes of pleasure-, but that is why they can put it up for adoption.  Why can't this course be pursued as opposed to abortion? 

I apologize for any restated questions or poor assumptions.

←

But we have already answered this question in this thread here.

[CodyD 0]

Not really. We are talking about a man's right in the choice(I personally say that, if it were involving me, I should have no choice). But, what about abortion in general? I am just wondering as to the ethics that she voluntarily did it-was not forced- so if she didn't take precautions to not bearing a fetus, then she should have to. She engaged in it, willingly, and should then willingly accept its consequences. Unless, it endangers the woman's life, but most cases of merely carrying the child until it can be adopted is no threat. Or, if it is still protoplasm(the potential to the potential).

[Stephen Speicher 0]

But, what about abortion in general?  I am just wondering as to the ethics that she voluntarily did it-was not forced- so if she didn't take precautions to not bearing a fetus, then she should have to.  She engaged in it, willingly, and should then willingly accept its consequences. Unless, it endangers the woman's life, but most cases of merely carrying the child until it can be adopted is no threat.  Or, if it is still protoplasm(the potential to the potential).

←

If the woman chose to eat a lot of sugary foods, and despite her brushing regularly she developed decay in her teeth, would you suggest that she just accept the consequences and let her teeth rot rather than going to the dentist and have him remove the decay? I suspect you are thinking about a fetus as if were a nice warm cuddlily baby, instead of some biological material. If my suspicion is correct, then until and unless you change such an image, I suspect your emotional attachment to a fetus will stop you from judging this issue any differently. On the other hand, if I am wrong about my suspicion, then you need to answer my first question above.

[CodyD 0]

Ack, I hate to say this, my friend used this argument once and I almost puked. Yet, here I am, using it. The dental requirements in question do not involve any life-merely your teeth. Abortion, however, has the question of life-or its potential. Your teeth don't even have the potential.

I apologize using that argument, but I felt it would carry forth some point or another.

[gnargtharst 0]

CodyD wrote [in response to an analogy about whether a person, having chosen to eat sugary foods, then has a right to get the decay removed by a dentist]: "The dental requirements in question do not involve any life-merely your teeth. Abortion, however, has the question of life-or its potential. Your teeth don't even have the potential."

So we'll modify the analogy slightly: a person chooses to smoke, and then develops a cancerous tumor in their lung. Does this person have the right to have the cancerous tumor removed. Remember, cancer cells are living things; they have potential.

Or, better: imagine you eat a food known to potentially carry parasites. Imagine some one of these parasites enters your body and takes up residence there. Do you have the right to kill this parasite, or must it be allowed to develop to its full potential?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Ack, I hate to say this, my friend used this argument once and I almost puked.  Yet, here I am, using it.  The dental requirements in question do not involve any life-merely your teeth.  Abortion, however, has the question of life-or its potential.  Your teeth don't even have the potential.

←

But that's why I pointed out that you need to stop thinking of this fetus as a cute little cuddily baby. Why must a woman value the unwanted potential of a fetus over an actual tooth in her mouth?

[CoireFox 0]

Now, a question as to abortion in general.

Ayn Rand always said that(or something along the following lines) causes have effects.  What you do will make something happen, and it is up to you to accept those consequences(This may be my own abstraction of Wishing Won't Make it So, but I think she has said something like this).  Now, why are women entitled, when they have full knowledge of the risks they are having during sex, to evade its primary consequence? 

←

Firstly, it is important to note the fact that man is a volitionally conscious creature, and thus has the ability to determine his own purpose for his actions. I would agree with you that, if the act of sexual intercourse NECESSITATED a pregnancy, i.e. there was no other possible outcome, that the woman would be evading reality. However, because man can choose his own purpose for the act of sexual intercourse, your argument that "it is up to you to accept those consequences" doesn't apply. The purpose of sex for the rational person is the physical expression of the love they feel for their partner. However, the purpose of sex can also be to produce a child. I would hardly call the baby a "risk," as risk involves the possibility of losing a value, and a fetus has no value as such.

[CoireFox 0]

Firstly, it is important to note the fact that man is a volitionally conscious creature, and thus has the ability to determine his own purpose for his actions.  I would agree with you that, if the act of sexual intercourse NECESSITATED a pregnancy, i.e. there was no other possible outcome, that the woman would be evading reality.  However, because man can choose his own purpose for the act of sexual intercourse, your argument that "it is up to you to accept those consequences" doesn't apply.  The purpose of sex for the rational person is the physical expression of the love they feel for their partner.  However, the purpose of sex can also be to produce a child.  I would hardly call the baby a "risk," as risk involves the possibility of losing a value, and a fetus has no value as such.

←

I just want to quickly apologize for the scatter-brainedness(is that even a word...no...no it isnt ) of my last post. It's late/early and I just finished a philosophy paper. I really do have a coherent thought trying to escape, and maybe I'll be able to express it fully later.

[Seeker of Truth 0]

Thank you for all the reponses.

As I said, I am learning about Objectivism, so let me give my own personal code of ethics for the situation I have brought up.

First of all, in any romantic relationship that I choose to engage in, I make sure that my partner understands that having children is not something that I personally want for my life. Therefore, my partner must share this same value.

Second, because having children is not something that I plan to do, I have always used the proper means to prevent a pregnancy from happening. But I wonder about women who constantly get pregnant, and constantly get abortions. Is their behavior rational? Pregnancy is certainly not the only purpose of sex, but a rational person understands that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, and therefore, if they do not want children, they should take the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy.

I would agree with you IF it were possible to teleport the fetus from the womb of the unwilling woman into an incubator maintained by the man who wants the child, but it isn't.  There is no way for the man to get the baby without initiating physical force.

←

I understand. Nature dictates that the woman carries the fetus. What is is what is, and we must base our morals on those facts.

However, is not the man in this situation being punished for something he has no control over? What if he would willingly carry the fetus himself, but since that is not possible, he would take care of the woman, her medical bills, etc. until she gave birth? If he is willing to do all of this, why should he be denied something that he will value for the rest of his life?

[Alpha 0]

What if he would willingly carry the fetus himself, but since that is not possible….

SINCE THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE, then he better get her voluntary agreement, or suck it up (sorry for the language). Where does he get the right to force her to undertake un-chosen obligations?

If he is willing to do all of this [take care of the woman, her medical bills, etc…], why should he be denied something that he will value for the rest of his life?

Because his simple need/wish/whim does not give him the right to the life of others. Values are not earned at the [involuntary] expense of others. Agreement must go both ways—the woman has to be willing to not only start the pregnancy, but also to maintain it. Anything less—such as your scenario—would be reducing her to the class of “rightless breeding machine”. The relationship would be an example of slavery, not of trade.

[poojagupta 0]

Thank you for all the reponses.

As I said, I am learning about Objectivism, so let me give my own personal code of ethics for the situation I have brought up.

First of all, in any romantic relationship that I choose to engage in, I make sure that my partner understands that having children is not something that I personally want for my life. Therefore, my partner must  share this same value.

Second, because having children is not something that I plan to do, I have always used the proper means to prevent a pregnancy from happening. But I wonder about women who constantly get pregnant, and constantly get abortions. Is their behavior rational? Pregnancy is certainly not the only purpose of sex, but a rational person understands that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, and therefore, if they do not want children, they should take the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy.

I understand. Nature dictates that the woman carries the fetus. What is is what is, and we must base our morals on those facts.

However, is not the man in this situation being punished for something he has no control over? What if he would willingly carry the fetus himself, but since that is not possible, he would take care of the woman, her medical bills, etc. until she gave birth? If he is willing to do all of this, why should he be denied something that he will value for the rest of his life?

←

While talking about Abortion Rights for Women, I think it is very important for objectivists to avoid falling into the trap of switching perspectives.

The two very distinct perspective are : legal and moral.

Should a woman be ever forced by law to take the fetus to term or abort it ? No. Law should recognize the right of a woman to her own body and life first. It is a basic fundamental right.

Is a woman morally guilty if she commits to have a baby but then aborts for no rational reason. Yes she is.

Let's not even talk of a woman or man who have sex without thinking of the consequences, they are of no consequence to our objective discussion.

But let's say a woman gets pregnant without wishing or wanting to be a mother and the man wants to keep the child.

The only thing he can do about it is to ask the woman to have the baby and give it to him.

Whatever the woman decides is her moral choice. Whether she wants to live with having an abortion, live with giving up her baby or live with being a mother should be her choice.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I understand. Nature dictates that the woman carries the fetus. What is is what is, and we must base our morals on those facts.

However, is not the man in this situation being punished for something he has no control over? What if he would willingly carry the fetus himself, but since that is not possible, he would take care of the woman, her medical bills, etc. until she gave birth? If he is willing to do all of this, why should he be denied something that he will value for the rest of his life?

←

Because the woman carries the child.

If he values fatherhood that much, he has the option of finding a WILLING mother.

[Seeker of Truth 0]

While talking about Abortion Rights for Women, I think it is very important for objectivists to avoid falling into the trap of switching perspectives.

The two very distinct perspective are : legal and moral.

Is a woman morally guilty if she commits to have a baby but then aborts for no rational reason. Yes she is.

Thank you. You clearly showed to me where my thinking was flawed. A woman should not be legally forced to abort or to carry to term. In the ideal world, a moral woman would make these decisions rationally, responsibly. She would also choose her partners rationally and responsibly, keeping her own personal values in mind.

Speaking from my own heart here, I just find it sad that people, for the most part, do not think these things through, and make the moral choice.

But let's say a woman gets pregnant without wishing or wanting to be a mother and the man wants to keep the child.

The only thing he can do about it is to ask the woman to have the baby and give it to him.

Whatever the woman decides is her moral choice. Whether she wants to live with having an abortion, live with giving up her baby or live with being a mother should be her choice.

←

Again, if the woman makes her relationship choices rationally, this shouldn't even be an issue she would have to deal with. She would choose a man that did not want children. Same thing for a man that makes rational choices in his relationships.

[Jay P 0]

The original question of why it's the only the woman's choice to have an abortion once she's pregnant can be answered by nothing more than reference to a simple fact.

It's her choice, because it's her body. It's as simple as that.

As has already been said, the fact of it being her choice can possibly be modified by her having made prior agreements.

[piz 0]

Because the woman carries the child.

If he values fatherhood that much, he has the option of finding a WILLING mother.

←

It's clear that if the pregnancy is unintentional that the decision is entirely the woman's. The man has no legal recourse (assuming proper laws - actually the absence of them - concerning abortion), and his only moral recourse is to try to persuade her to carry to term.

Now, let me throw a curve at the discussion - one that has been suggested but not really addressed yet: Let's say that the couple has discussed this, and come to agreement that they're going to have a child. This is a fully informed decision for both of them. Then, after the woman becomes pregnant, she changes her mind. Under these circumstances, does she have the right to terminate the pregnancy?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Now, let me throw a curve at the discussion - one that has been suggested but not really addressed yet: Let's say that the couple has discussed this, and come to agreement that they're going to have a child. This is a fully informed decision for both of them. Then, after the woman becomes pregnant, she changes her mind. Under these circumstances, does she have the right to terminate the pregnancy?

←

Wouldn't that depend on what you mean by "come to agreement?" If they signed a binding contract to that effect, I would say that she still has the moral right to terminate the pregnancy if, with reason, she changed her mind, but legally she could be responsible for damages

[B. Royce 0]

I would say that if the couple has fully "discussed this", they have covered the option of "her" changing her mind. Now, "he" might also change his mind, and that is a possibility they both must consider, especially "her".