Ayn Rand on Abortion Options

[Brian Smith]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

[PhilO]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

[Brian Smith]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

I have it and did not find anything but very general references to abortion. From what I could find it did not contain any discussions about moral questions pertaining to late term abortions. Yet, as I said, I seem to recall reading at least one of her writings with such a discussion in it. Are you specifically aware of such a discussion and which article/essay/whatever it was in?

[softwareGuru]

Brian, I think you may be thinking of the following:

A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

From a few other quotations (FHF via the "Answers" compilation), my interpretation is that Rand was not expressing doubts about third trimester abortions. Rather, she was saying that people could argue that in the later stages what one had was more than a piece of protoplasm. However, from a philosophical/political viewpoint, she held that life starts at birth. In the FHF Q&A she said something like this again, mentioning that people might argue about the medical question (I'm paraphrasing, please check the "Answers" compilation), and that she did not know about that aspect, but from a philosophical viewpoint...

...life starts at birth.

I think she made the same point in an FHF Q&A in 1967.

[Brian Smith]

Brian, I think you may be thinking of the following:

One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.

My recollection is of something a bit more in-depth than a single sentence. And my source would not have been the FHF, unless there is an older compilation of the Q&A from them than the one published very recently.

However, your suggestion to look in the AR ANSWERS book was a good one. It does touch to some degree upon the moral questions I was referencing:

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

"An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human..."

"You might argue that medically an embryo is alive at six to eight months. I don't know. But no woman in her right mind would have an abortion that late; it's very dangerous for her."

"a human embryo does not even have the beginnings of a nervous system until a number of months (around three, I believe) into the pregnancy. At that point, the embryo is perhaps potentially conscious. And beyond this time, abortion becomes dangerous to the mother....before that point, there is no rational, moral, or semi-humane argument that could be made in favor of forbidding abortion."

All of this tends to support my recollections of AR's arguments, but they do not go much into the (limited) depth that I remember. My recollection is of a discussion about the different trimesters and the philosophical/ethical implications of the development at these different stages. As such, I am still wondering if there is not another essay, article, or other work of hers out there which is still eluding me on this issue.

[Jason Fowler]

I seem to recall Miss Rand wrote a bit about ethical questions raised concerning abortions in the later stages of pregnancy. However, in reviewing her works, I don't seem to be able to find reference to such ideas. Is anyone familiar with such material - or am I mistaken in my recollections?

I think I may be, in part, responsible for this. You see, it was I who bought your copy of The Ayn Rand Letter.

The name of the article in The Ayn Rand Letter is: A Last Survey.

[PhilO]

My recollection is of a discussion about the different trimesters and the philosophical/ethical implications of the development at these different stages.

I am certain that I've never read anything by Ayn Rand where she goes into that sort of detail. I highly doubt that she ever did, partly because I've read quite a bit, but more so because it's a matter of principle at *any* stage of fetal development (that until delivery it's part of the mother's body, her body and her right to it.)

[Brian Smith]

I am certain that I've never read anything by Ayn Rand where she goes into that sort of detail.

I'm not indicating that it was an extensive essay on the subject, but that it did mention such terms and discussed some of the points I just quoted from AR in relation to those terms and stages. Perhaps if it was not AR, it was Dr. P (again this would have been in writing, not any audio presentations).

[Matt]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."
i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

[Brian Smith]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."
i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

The actual context of Miss Rand's statement:

"I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue.) The right to abortion is the right to get rid of some cells in your body, which you cant afford to support if it grows into a child."

[Guest_Aaron Michael Morales_*]

"Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue."

If memory serves me, the above quote is from the Ford Hall Forum in the 1970s and was preceded by, "Don't tell me about..."
i.e. "Don't tell me about abortion at the last minute..."

The actual context of Miss Rand's statement:

"I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute - when a baby is formed - is a different issue.) The right to abortion is the right to get rid of some cells in your body, which you cant afford to support if it grows into a child."

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

Two scenarios:
1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.
2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

These are very generic scenarios that naturally don't factor in the many reasons someone would choose to have the procedure performed (economic, religious, moral, legal, etc.).

The debate always seems to focus on the same ethical and/or moral questions (i.e., "it is only a cluster of cells," or, "it is a child at conception," or, "it is the woman's right [depending on the stage of preganancy she's in] since it is her body.") . Primarily, those who are for abortion seem to agree (mostly) that 1. the woman has the ultimate right/privledge, as it is growing in her body, and 2. it is not the place of the government to encroach on a human's right to choose what to do with her body.

Now, I know this is a very cheap summarizaton of the debate, but I'm merely using it as a jumping point for my question:

The man who provided the sperm to enseminate the egg that created the cells in question, does he have any say so? What has the dialogue between ethicists said on this? Is there anywhere in Ayn Rand's work where she may have addressed this? I've not been able to find any discussion on this, legal, philosophical, spiritual, or otherwise. It always seems to be a non-issue to those who are passionate about either side of the dreaded abortion debate.

Thanks for your time and input.

Aaron

[Betsy Speicher]

Two scenarios:

1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.

Since she is the one who makes the choice, she takes the consequences which means she pays for the pregnancy and for the support of the child.

2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

He's out of luck because you can't enforce "specific performance" which, in this case, means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term. He's also responsible for half of the cost of the abortion since he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

[Scott A.]

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

I don't know if Ayn Rand has spoken to this directly, but I have a memory of hearing (or reading) this issue raised before. My guess is that those most likely to support the idea are anti-abortionists. I think the basic question is whether or not property rights exist, with one's body being the most fundamental property one has.

If the father has a legal right to intervene in the decision process, then the real effect would be to give him final say regardless of the woman's choice. After all, if she says she wants an abortion and he says no, but she goes ahead and does it anyway, then his right has been violated (or so it would be argued). In other words, the enactment of his right, to be realized, would have to be demonstrated by an impact on the decision. But this is a yes/no decision, and so his right could only be exercised by having final say. Obviously the woman has just lost the right to her own life and property, and must bear the unwanted burden of the pregnancy and, if she is conscientious, the duty of raising a child.

As an aside, although the woman in the above situation may love the child she was forced to have, there will likely be a shadow over the early and, in many ways, most formative years of his development. Children are amazingly perceptive of human behavior, particularly to the emotional expressions of adults, and especially their parents. They will know something is wrong, that it has to do with them, but they won't know what. It's not necessarily a formula for disaster, but it is unnecessary to begin with.

[Guest_Aaron Michael Morales_*]

Two scenarios:

1. The mother wants to keep the fetus, and the father does not.

Since she is the one who makes the choice, she takes the consequences which means she pays for the pregnancy and for the support of the child.

2. The father wants to keep the fetus, and the mother does not.

He's out of luck because you can't enforce "specific performance" which, in this case, means forcing a woman to carry a baby to term. He's also responsible for half of the cost of the abortion since he is half responsible for the pregnancy.

That would make sense, and yet it seems to me that the logic to answer #2 is the logic applied to question #1 ,and the logic applied to answer #1 is the logic applied to question #2. At least in terms of parental rights/support laws and my perception of the ever-elusive "general moral consensus" among those outspoken on this issue.

What might account for this discrepancy?

[Guest_Aaron Michael Morales_*]

I'm curious about another ethical question that is rarely addressed in any of the abortion debates, and that is the right of the father of the child, in terms of having a say in the woman's choice to get an abortion.

If the father has a legal right to intervene in the decision process, then the real effect would be to give him final say regardless of the woman's choice. After all, if she says she wants an abortion and he says no, but she goes ahead and does it anyway, then his right has been violated (or so it would be argued). In other words, the enactment of his right, to be realized, would have to be demonstrated by an impact on the decision. But this is a yes/no decision, and so his right could only be exercised by having final say. Obviously the woman has just lost the right to her own life and property, and must bear the unwanted burden of the pregnancy and, if she is conscientious, the duty of raising a child.

And yet, if the father chooses he doesn't want to have the child, he has no legal recourse. Instead, he then takes on legal responsibility, in the form of child-support. Haven't his rights been violated then, or, because the cells are growing in a person's body other than his own, does he have no leg to stand on, so to speak? The inverse of this thinking holds true too. He wanted the baby, and she didn't. Haven't his rights as co-creator, as it were, been violated too? That's not to say he wanted to force her to have it and raise it herself, just that he wanted a child, regardless of the mother's participation in the parenting process.

It's just always bothered me that the issue always factors out half of the parental equation.

I just feel that this has been oversimplified and overlooked all too often. That's why I was curious to see what scholars have said about it.

[ewv]

I don't know if Ayn Rand has spoken to this directly, but I have a memory of hearing (or reading) this issue raised before. My guess is that those most likely to support the idea are anti-abortionists. I think the basic question is whether or not property rights exist, with one's body being the most fundamental property one has.

The idea of rights based on a 'property right' to your own body is an old libertarian formulation which I don't think Ayn Rand ever endorsed in any form and don't remember her discussing. Property rights are derivative from your right to your own life, which includes (obviously) your own body. You can't base the rights of the individual on property rights.

[Betsy Speicher]

That would make sense, and yet it seems to me that the logic to answer #2 is the logic applied to question #1 ,and the logic applied to answer #1 is the logic applied to question #2. At least in terms of parental rights/support laws and my perception of the ever-elusive "general moral consensus" among those outspoken on this issue.

What might account for this discrepancy?

It is a biological fact that in 100% of the cases, it is the woman who carries the fetus and has the choice to carry it to term or not. The moral principle involved is that a person is responsible for the consequences of his own choices and actions, nothing more and nothing less. "General moral consensus" should have nothing to do with it.

[ewv]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

Is it going out of print? No new edition with all the new material? Are there copies preserved in acid-free plastic safely hidden in caves?

[Betsy Speicher]

And yet, if the father chooses he doesn't want to have the child, he has no legal recourse. Instead, he then takes on legal responsibility, in the form of child-support. Haven't his rights been violated then

I think so because he is at least 50% responsible for the pregnancy, but she is 100% responsible for the birth. If he is willing to pay for an abortion, he shouldn't have to pay child support.

The inverse of this thinking holds true too. He wanted the baby, and she didn't. Haven't his rights as co-creator, as it were, been violated too? That's not to say he wanted to force her to have it and raise it herself, just that he wanted a child, regardless of the mother's participation in the parenting process.

He has other options for achieving that goal including hiring a surrogate mother and adoption. Forcing an unwilling woman to carry his child is not an option.

[Betsy Speicher]

There are a number of references to abortion in the corpus of her work. You might want to buy The Objectivism Research CD-ROM while it's still available.

Is it going out of print? No new edition with all the new material? Are there copies preserved in acid-free plastic safely hidden in caves?

The discussion that followed was moved to the topic "Objectivism Research CD" here.