Roe v. Wade


Guyau

Recommended Posts

.

Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life

Leonard Peikoff

I gather Dr. Peikoff is not so settled as to what the law should be concerning the second and third trimesters. His point about relative undifferentiated tissue in the first trimester fades as development in the womb continues. His comparison of fetus to fish (comparing brains I imagine) in the first trimester is incorrect by the end of that trimester; by then, the brain of the fetus has mammalian features, though not primate features. However short of having the features of a human brain by that time, the difference will of course fade as normal development proceeds. Peikoff speaks, with Rand, of individuality beginning at birth, but does not venture into the circumstance that successful births need not be full term. They can be brought about before then. The point at which the fetus has reached biological individuality is partly a function of medical knowhow and resources. The philosophical principles Peikoff appeals to are insufficient to a full analysis of the ethics and rights in abortion. They are correct, but must be supplemented with additional correct philosophical principles.

RelatedA, B, C, D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade is a euphemism for the right to have an abortion. This makes the issue a federal as opposed to a states' right issue. Henry Mark Holzer, supposedly an Objectivist, has come out on the states' right side, as have many conservatives. Once the sperm meets the egg you have a unique human being, never mind the bs about undifferentiated cells, but human rights are only applicable here if rights are intrinsic in the organism, hence the "right to life." But there are no rights in a person unless granted by God. God, by the intrinsicists, grants this, but no other, right. The right to lifers are completely incapable of, or disinterested in, in explicating natural rights' theory of any other sort. This is faith, not reason. Rights are simply a human invention objectified by reference to actual human nature put into law. Thus natural rights are not otherwise intrinsic and essentially epistemological. That is, they are identified as moral and needed respecting an individual thinking organism in a human society, but the brain makes such so and into law. It is only a philosophy of rights that recognizes the primary of individualism and the non-primacy of social life no matter how needed but integrates the two appropriately and relieves Howard Roark of tribalism.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant,

I do not agree that a fertilized human egg is an individual human being. (Be careful not to pack a developmental plan into DNA; there is no plan, notwithstanding the usual metaphorical talk; information in DNA is insufficient to bring about an organism; the suitable and elaborate conditions outside DNA are not accessories.*) And there remains the common point taken up by Rand and Peikoff: a cell is obviously not a multicellular organism, and a potential is not an actual.

I concur that rights are not intrinsic. They are relational. These relations are in the world, so I would say rights are metaphysical, within the realm of human life (as are the needs you mention of the individual thinking human being). Rights require correct epistemology for their discernment, and as you note, faith subverts that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade is a euphemism for the right to have an abortion. This makes the issue a federal as opposed to a states' right issue. Henry Mark Holzer, supposedly an Objectivist, has come out on the states' right side, as have many conservatives. Once the sperm meets the egg you have a unique human bein

No. You have a living thing with a unique homo sapien genome. But is that living thing a human person? The issue is not genes. It is personhood.

When does an abortion kill a person vs when does an abortion kill a living organism that just happens to have a genome similar to its biological predecessors?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roe v Wade is a euphemism for the right to have an abortion. This makes the issue a federal as opposed to a states' right issue. Henry Mark Holzer, supposedly an Objectivist, has come out on the states' right side, as have many conservatives. Once the sperm meets the egg you have a unique human bein
No. You have a living thing with a unique homo sapien genome. But is that living thing a human person? The issue is not genes. It is personhood.

When does an abortion kill a person vs when does an abortion kill a living organism that just happens to have a genome similar to its biological predecessors?

The quickening?

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree that a fertilized human egg is an individual human being.

Stephen,

I've written about this elsewhere. (See below.)

I believe it is a mistake to eliminate the "human being" label from a human being in the very first stage of development as an individual. My reasons are not emotional, they are epistemological.

Part of the nature of living beings is a growth cycle. So I don't see how growth can be removed from identifying human nature.

This is where the Objectivist-libertarian argument, which you articulated (and which Rand did), has a fundamental weakness. When you move around the start point of the growth cycle to a place different than where biology has clearly given its own so you can start calling a new human life a "human being" from that new point on, you are ALWAYS going to have resistance. This will never make sense to some people--and I include myself as one of them. That is on an epistemological level, too. It sounds to someone who thinks as I do like "moving the goalposts" on an identification to make room for a higher-level principle (like rights).

The following statement is not a very good standard: "A human is not a human until I determine it's a human." Nature just doesn't work that way. And I hold that you cannot evaluate something correctly, much less approach a more complicated normative topic like its rights, unless you identify it correctly.

So in my world, an individual human being starts as a fertilized egg, embarks on a growth cycle going through several developmental stages, pre-birth, birth, infancy, childhood, etc., and, if not killed along the way, reaches a maturity point, starts to decay and ultimately dies. Those who think like I do (based on several discussions I have had over the years) have this same view and, for the most part, consider it common sense.

Now, as to politics, I am for the mother having the right to abort. I believe an unborn child, even in the first moments after fertilization, has a right to life. That is so long as the mother lives in a society that protects rights, which should be all societies. (If there is no society, like someone being stranded on a desert island, the concept of rights to me has no meaning.) But, as I argue below, I believe the right to life of the unborn child is under the sovereignty of the mother until birth. And I give my reasons.

There is one exception I do not argue below, so I'll mention it here. The exception arises because the state has the obligatioin to protect the mother. It happens when a person removes and kills the fetus without the mother's consent, especially during something like beating the mother up during her pregnancy. If that happens, I hold that individual's right to life has been violated (I'm talking about the unborn child) and I would want to see the killer prosecuted by the state like any criminal.

There are gray areas that would need to be fleshed out in my model (like aborting to save the mother's life when she is unconscious, etc.), but at least it does not suffer from an identification defect like "rights are given by God," or "a fetus is not a human being."

... I hold the right to life of the human being in the prenatal stage is under the sovereignty of the mother since it physically lives and grows inside her body--meaning she can acknowledge that right or terminate it at her sole discretion. Her body is her domain. Enforcement only passes to the government on the baby's birth with the physical separation of bodies.

That's not the way the law is stated, nor is it the way Roe vs. Wade was argued, but that's that way I think it should be. The Supreme Court used "viability," but that is a horseshit standard that is totally arbitrary. You do not define an individual human being out of existence because it is starting out in life and not "viable," whatever that means by whoever is defining it at the moment, nor do you deny that individual (the conceived human being before birth) a respective right to life.

Is an older person in a weakened state not "viable"? Say, a person in a coma? Fer Kerissakes! Imagine where that standard could go if it caught on.

As regards the right to life, you merely make it clear who is the authority and under what conditions. But you keep the identification of the individual as a human being with a right to life. Correct identification is the cornerstone of rationality. And as gravy, citing the mother's sovereignty while she is carrying the prenatal human being is another form of check and balance against the government, if you will. Clarity is your friend in complicated issues.

I believe these abortion discussions never end because of lack of clear identification of what a human being is--in other words, whether the life cycle is essential in identifying humans. (And I don't see how it could be eliminated and still be called identification. Human beings are living beings.)

Regardless, no amount of blah blah blah justifies calling a conceived individual life form by a different name than its species. Notice we only do that with humans.

My position is just an argument so far. I realize that. So I don't expect it to spread. But maybe I will elaborate on it in a high-suspense fiction story of some sort and put it into the culture, i.e., on the mainstream discussion table, that way. Or, if not me, then someone else.

But one thing is clear to me. So long as everyone disagrees on what a human being is, they will always disagree over how to legally kill one.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To add to my point above, here is Peikoff's misidentification from the article linked to in the opening post:

The embryo is clearly pre-human...

I wish I knew what "pre-human" means, other than maybe Peikoff being the authority to determine when a human life becomes human.

It sounds like a stolen concept to me. In fact, it is a stolen concept using my way of identifying life forms. (It removes growth as fundamental to a life form, but uses growth to denote a fundamentally different "pre" being.) And that is why I believe this argument will never go mainstream.

In fact, I can't think of a quicker path to undoing Roe v.. Wade than that direction.

Leaving epistemology and going to the purely emotional level, if the public has the main choice between "an embryo is clearly pre-human" and "all God's children are precious to Him," it's a no-brainer which one will win long-term.

I believe clear, rational identification, if properly marketed, ultimately will fix that.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^

Can an embryo think? Can a fetus reason? Does a prenatal human have enough brain tissue to execute the functions we normally associate with human personhood? The answer to all of the prior questions is NO.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can a prenatal human being do stuff an adult human being can do?

The answer is NO.

:smile:

Michael

a pre-hatal human being can't even do stuff a child can do.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can do with a topic and statements here is re-create a theme or two in prose-poetry, which I will do until my edit-window closes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To say that human DNA is human in that adjectival way is correct, but does not make human DNA into a cell, thence into a human cell. And a single human cell being human in that adjectival way does not make a single human cell into a human being.

There is nothing arbitrary, amateur, or wishy washy about judgments of viability in the legal meaning. It is a matter of professional judgments of causal capabilities including those of wouldbe immediate caregivers.

The definition of viability I rely on includes the likelihood that the point of viability gets earlier as medical science and technology advance. Viability is reached when there is a reasonable chance of the fetus' "sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support" (Colautti v. Franklin 1978). The fact that zygotes might someday be artificially viable does not mean that anyone would have a moral duty or obligation to bring about their development into human infants.

As of the early 80s, when I was studying this issue, viability was usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) and in some cases as early as 24 weeks. . . . The attending physician judges viability by considering the gestational age of the fetus, the approximate fetal weight, the woman's general health and nutrition, and the quality of the available medical facilities. The US Supreme Court has required that the statutory definitions of viability be flexible to allow the attending physician "the room he needs to make his best medical judgment" (Doe v. Bolton 1973).

Prior to the point of viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother cannot bring the development of the fetus forward without the service of the mother. After the point of viability, they can. The preceding two sentences are only stating causal facts. As far as properly enforceable rights go, I say the situation is this:

Prior to viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother have no right to prevent termination of the pregnancy. They must not impress the mother into their service. They must pursue their projects in life without impressing anyone into their service.

After viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother have a limited right to require (and provide for) transfer of the fetus without harm. . . .

Viability in this sense is morally significant because it is the point at which the fetus can begin biological existence independently of the natural mother. This factor does not complete what is missing from the Rand-Peikoff analysis of the issue, but it is a major point they missed (and perhaps did not understand).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Michael, the right of the fetus you suggest seems to be a right to life against its taking by anyone except the mother. To have no right to life against its taking by the mother (and her physician) means it has no right to life vis-a-vis her. It would be misleading to say, then, that the fetus has a right to life; when we say simply that someone has a right to life or a right to acquire property, we mean there is a right against all wouldbe takers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

Viability does not serve as a marker of being a human being in Roe or in my analysis.

When we get the ability to grow a zygote to infancy right out of the lab, we won't have to adjudicate any claims for directing that zygote's development that entail possible impressment of the mother into the service of other wouldbe directors. The present legal definition of viability will have been satisfied from the time of the beginning cell in the lab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ ^ ^

Can an embryo think? Can a fetus reason? Does a prenatal human have enough brain tissue to execute the functions we normally associate with human personhood? The answer to all of the prior questions is NO.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I've known a lot of people who can't think or reason. My step-father had a son who has half a brain. They all have a right to life.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've known a lot of people who can't think or reason. My step-father had a son who has half a brain. They all have a right to life.

--Brant

Half of a full grown brain is sufficient. All of an infant brain is not.

While I am at let me ask: Is an acorn an oak tree?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to clarify a remark I made in Post #1. However, it occurs to me that this thread is a good place to set out some basic vocabulary. I’ll do that as well in this post and do it first. (I doubt I have always used these terms according to Hoyle, though once upon a time I had known them exactly.)

The fertilized egg is termed a zygote. From the time of the first cell division to about the eighth week of development, the multi-cellular assembly is termed an embryo. From that time until birth, all its rudimentary organs are present, and the standard term is no longer embryo, but fetus.

The earlier statement I want to clarify is: “The point at which the fetus has reached biological individuality is partly a function of medical knowhow and resources.”

As birth approaches, the fetus is gearing up to regulate its own temperature more and to begin receiving nutrition through GI and oxygen by breathing. The fetus receives nutrition and oxygen into its blood through the placenta, and it releases carbon dioxide from its blood through the placenta as well. (Fetus plus placenta is termed conceptus.) Placenta is within in the fetus’ circulatory system, though not in a series situation, unlike the situation of breathing lungs. Rather, the placenta is in a parallel configuration with the rest of the fetus’ circulatory system. The fetal lungs receive only about 10 to 15 percent of the blood being pumped by the fetus’ heart, enough for life and growth of the lung tissue. At birth heart ducts that made possible the parallel flow through placenta will close off and all blood will be pumped through the lungs, then through the rest of the body.

It is the modern ability to artificially move onset of breathing earlier that I had in mind specifically in my general statement “the point at which the fetus has reached biological individuality is partly a function of medical knowhow and resources.”*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

My original essay on abortion, titled “Innocent Threats and Abortion,” was published in 1983. There is a succinct update on the legal definition of viability and its medical drift to earlier times in the pregnancy here. Notice that the conflicting interests mentioned in the final paragraph of page one in this Slate article neglect the conflicting interests (conflicting claims of legitimate interests) identified in my own analysis of the ethics and rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I took part in a pretty heated discussion on OO about late term abortion a few months ago:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24656&hl=

There's a poster or two who believe it's ok to dismember an infant up until the moment the umbilical cord is severed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've known a lot of people who can't think or reason. My step-father had a son who has half a brain. They all have a right to life.

--Brant

Half of a full grown brain is sufficient. All of an infant brain is not.

While I am at let me ask: Is an acorn an oak tree?

It's not when some cells turn into a human being, it's when and if the unborn child gets rights. You are arguing on the intrinsic premise of the anti-abortionists. It's a never-ending argument. Even Ayn Rand said the debate is centered on the first tri-mester. That's where you'll find the Objectivist position: a woman has the right to get an abortion. Then as you go deeper and deeper into the pregnancy you get proper debate and explications, but not properly with the intrinsicists who are still back there where the sperm penetrates the egg saying "No!" to the morning after pill.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not when some cells turn into a human being, it's when and if the unborn child gets rights.

Brant,

That should be the proper frame of the debate in my view.

Stephen made a good identification observation:

The fertilized egg is termed a zygote.

This establishes (1) something new exists that did not exist before, (2) it comes from the fusion of an egg and sperm, and (3) we can call it a zygote. The one thing missing--or conveniently vague for this kind of debate (both sides)--is what animal is it?

In my conception, a zygote is not a different animal (or different life form) than a human being.

A zygote is an individual human being in the very first stage of development. Not some kind of mystical soul and not just a piece of slimy protoplasm--but instead, an individual human being.

If we start with that observation as a definition matter and only a definition matter, then we can move--with total clarity--to the problem of dependency, characterizing stages of development and individuation, when the unborn gets rights, who defends those rights, etc.

Until that point is reached as a general consensus, there will be a lot of mud floating around the waters.

When everybody is defining something differently than everybody else, it's no wonder they can't agree on anything.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael wrote and I will condense:

If we start with that observation as a definition matter . . . then we can move--with total clarity--to the problem of dependency, characterizing stages of development and individuation, when the unborn gets rights, who defends those rights, etc.

end quote

Well said. Thanks to Stephan for replying and bringing some definitional clarity to the discussion. True Objectivists are people who do not recite Rand’s words, but always think for themselves. That is why I am here and not at some other site.

I will agree with all Objectivists that:

One) The fertilized egg is termed a *zygote.*

Two) From the time of the first cell division to about the eighth week of development, the multi-cellular assembly is termed an *embryo.*

Three) From then until birth, all of a human’s rudimentary organs are present, and the standard term is no longer embryo, but *fetus.*

Four) The point at which the fetus has reached biological individuality (and *viability*) is partly a function of medical know how and resources.

Five) *Rights* require a correct epistemology for their discernment. Rights are not intrinsic. They are relational.

So, after fertilization a human is always a human at whatever stage of development or aging it is experiencing but a human is not a *person* with *rights* until a brain is present and functioning. The functioning brain *is* the person within the body, though of course, with today’s technology an incubator might be needed for existence if viability is not yet achieved, or as with old age viability without assistance is lost. If the thinking person is present then others *must* in a relational sense grant that being *rights.* There is a clear chronology of human existence throughout its pre-birth growth, and then kaboom, a * person with rights* lies before you – separate and equal - like a 4th of July starburst.

Do all agree that personhood requires a functioning brain? : -) I go for the 26th to 28th week of gestation as the defining moment of creation.

Another sticky wicket is longevity and assisted living in old age. What if a person could live for centuries? What if a person need never die?

Sorry. Do all those asterisks help? I am using them to denote existents, including concepts. I think I got that technique from Roger Bissell.

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

A zygote is not an animal. It is an animal cell. There are single cells that are animals, such as an amoeba, but a human zygote or a giraffe zygote is not an animal. When we say they are animal cells, we are saying animal adjectivally. When we speak of a human zygote, we are saying human adjectivally, as when we speak of a human hair in distinction from a horse hair. A human zygote is not an animal, and it is not a human being, beyond the adjectival sense. Human being as an instance of that kind of animal is a sense of the phrase not applicable to a human zygote; it is a further sense, beyond the adjectival.

Peter,

I do not know whether it is entirely sensible to consider a fetus or a neonate as a person until there is later brain development. Not all potentials are equally close to actuality, of course, and that would suggest different appropriate attitudes and behaviors towards the entity at different stages of its approach to actuality. In my approach to the choices for abortion laws, the fetus is respected at least by its potential for being brought to infancy and beyond by others once a mother decides she does not want it. My defense of what can be done to a mother rejecting guardianship is guided by what rights she should have against other people forcibly enlisting her in their projects of development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen,

In other words, in your conception, a zygote is an attribute of a human? Or a part of a human? Or a cell as a kind of specific existent in nature where "human" is an incidental quality of some sort?

I don't understand.

In my view, a zygote is an animal (as in the noun, "rational animal") in the very first stage of development. It cannot grow in any other manner than that embedded in its nature. And it cannot stop growing unless it dies. But in my view, a human being has a beginning, a middle and an end on a timeline--just like all animals do--just like all living beings do. That's part of how I see the law of identity applied to them.

Maybe your definition does not include a timeline and growth arc as fundamental to a living being's nature? Even so, I still do not understand your example of horse hair or relegating the word "human" exclusively to adjective status for this phase of development in an animal's existence.

That sounds like saying the animal does not exist during the time it exists as a zygote.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephan wrote:

There are single cells that are animals, such as an amoeba, but a human zygote or a giraffe zygote is not an animal.

end quote

Stephen, that is a difficult concept to grasp. Like Michael I wondered, isn’t “a zygote an animal in the very first stage of development?” I would agree that a "normal" single cell is not an animal, but the zygote, even at the one cell stage after conception IS an animal. I lovingly call this The Big Bang Theory.

Yet, in your arguments favor, what if a cell could be cloned or coaxed into becoming a complete animal? Would that initial cell then be considered an animal because of what it becomes, after the fact of its potential being finalized / realized? And a normal zygote is an animal after conception, which is also after the fact of being two cells, combined. So I gotcha Stephen: one plus one equals three.

To summarize, a single cell through cloning cannot be an animal unless it’s potential is altered to multiply, differentiate and become an animal. A sperm and an egg are not an animal until they combine and then that entity becomes an animal. Now bring humans into the equation. Ach de lieber!

So *potential* is crucial. Actually being on the way to becoming an animal is crucial to being an animal.

Confused on the Chesapeake,

Peter

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now