Abortion

[Brant Gaede]

We are not having a philosophical discussion.

--Brant

[Charles R. Anderson]

If that hair that you compare to a fetus is allowed to stay on the woman's head will it grow a mind of its own with cognitive abilities and remove itself on its own? The fact is that they cannot do this. This is a variable which defines the difference between a human-being-to-be and a hair on the human's head.

Yes, and for that reason we should all do heroine, LSD, crack, and meth. It's not like we have a future to worry about. Live in the moment, anyone who's decides of their own free will that they are not going to do these things and hold those who do responsible for their own actions is contaminated by the evil Judeo-Christian morals that say we'll be repayed in heaven. Those who want to tie the responsibility of the well-being and condition of the drug user's own mind around the necks of the drug users is either a Christian, follows Christian morals, or has never done drugs.

Let's face it, your attempt at discrediting my opinions failed miserably.

Who's responsibility would you suggest we tie the burden of the baby around? Sure, we can abort it, but for you to say that we can't hold people responsible for the result of an action they take? Come on.

You have admitted it's alive, once you've done that you have to decide whether or not it is human. If the baby is human then you can't kill it.

Edit: This post was edited to make it more polite.

As is very often the case, the subject of abortion draws passionate responses.

In this case the passion rose to such heights that the mother's living tissue of the fetus was placed only in comparison to her living hair, but not in comparison to her living ovaries, kidneys, heart, or brain. Choose to rephase an argument that the fetus is a part of her body into its only being her hair and you are off to the races with a straw man to knock down. Interesting though that we do not dictate hair styles to women or tell them that they cannot cut their hair, but we can tell them that they must nourish a fetus for 9 months or some such time.

It is clear that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. That fact should not be ignored. It is interesting to note the many stages of development of a fetus on its path to becoming a human being. The times when the heart starts beating or when some brain functions become evident are important events in the development of the child's potential to become a human being. Of course, that moment when the egg is fertilized is also an important event. So are those moments when an infant can be sustained in life under intensive hospital care if it is born prematurely. Then there is also that glorious moment of birth when everything has gone well and a baby is born fully able to breathe and nurse at its mother's breasts. These are all stages of development and it really is rather arbitrary which of them becomes that moment when we attribute some extra measure of life to a fetus/baby. But the status of the fetus as a part of a woman's body is clear. That is of particular moment.

But, for the moment, let us ignore this saliant fact. Let us say the fetus enjoys the right to life from the moment of brain function, just to choose what might be a popular moment in the development of human potential. Then, we declare that an abortion after this moment is murder. Now, in the real world, medically we do not know the precise date of conception. There is maybe a two week error in pinning that date down. So, what do we do? Let's say we decide to tack on a two week grace period to the average moment when brain activity starts. Now, in real terms, many women who have an abortion just under the legal wire have actually committed the moral sin of murder, but the law will ignore this.

Now, let us suppose that some women still make up their minds to have an abortion just after the legal boundary, perhaps the father has just announced he is not yet ready to be a real father. Or, maybe the pregnancy self-aborts, as many do. A pregnancy-monitoring social worker swoops down to avenge the death of a human being in either case, not knowing how to determine is the abortion was natural or performed by some doctor or some quack. The once pregnant woman has no healthy, living fetus to use as evidence to defend herself, so she is convicted of murder and executed. Or is it to be merely life in prision? So, the more thoughtful women who might become pregnant will soon learn that it cannot be really proven that they were pregnant, if they avoided establishing a medical record of the fact. So, especially in those early weeks of pregnancy when many pregnancies self-abort, it becomes wise to avoid going to a doctor for any check-ups, for any medical reason. If no one knows you are pregnant, then you are safe from the avenging social workers. Or so you hope.

But not for long, since soon the social workers propose a law that every woman of child-bearing age will have a manditory medical check-up every 4, 6, or 10 weeks. Then, imagine the wickedness that anyone who is unhappy with a woman can do by accusing her of having an abortion and requiring her to prove that she did not? Witch hunts will occur. OK, maybe the accuser has to provide the proof, but what is adequate proof? Some real problems will arise here.

Ah, but you say these are just details. Yes, but they are difficult details and a human being's life depends upon them. You have been concerned with the potential of the fetus to become human, but we cannot forget that the mother is human.

So, with the extension of the rights to life to fetuses who have brain activity, comes the requirement that society see that the fetus human being is not abused by the mother. Now, we have what should be a kind of ultimate dream for the Nanny State. The social worker bureaucracy will monitor the mother to be sure that she is getting their prescribed medical attention, they will issue her orders for diet and exercise, they will require her to get 8 hours of sleep every night, that she not smoke and not drink alcohol, and if the doctor orders complete bed rest, she will have to comply completely. Afterall, she is but the nourishing vessel in which the ward of the state lies. Of course, the responsibility to maintain the fetus in the best health is hers and if she does not, it is off to jail she goes! The Nanny State must protect the rights of the fetus to life. The decision has been made that it is not of critical importance that the fetus is a living part of a living woman, except insofar as it imposes obligations upon the living woman to the overweening rights of the fetus as a human being.

Now, is the law declaring abortion after brain activity to be retroactive? Many laws in the last 20 years or so have been. If so, we will have to haul many a woman into the courts. I personally know a number of women who have had an abortion. Am I obligated by your law to turn them in? Am I abetting a crime if I do not? Many of those women later had a number of children and are very good mothers. Many of them lead very productive lives and are good people. Whether the law is retroactive or not, society will declare them the moral equivalent of a murderer. No, wait, that is too weak. Society will have declared them murderers who got away with murder on a technicality of the law. They wil be treated like O. J. Simpson, without the benefits of celebrity.

You may try to argue that these will not be the consequences of your simple-minded inversion of the observation that when a born human being loses brain activity they die as justification for declaring that the right to life exists from the moment of fetal brain activity. I say that these must be the consequences logically of your declaration and its becoming law. Sure, these consequences will develop in time. We would not likely have to contend with them all immediately.

I will also point out that if the rights of life starts with fetal brain activity or fetal heart beat, then there is no reason to grant exceptions for rape and even for the health of the mother. It is simply the case that the right to live of the fetus is equal to the right to live of the mother. NO, actually, as we have seen, the fetus has a greater right which imposes many obligations upon the mother to serve! The mother is but the servent of the fetus. No, this also is not strong enough. Involuntary servitude has a name and that name is slavery.

I have known slavery. I was inducted into the Army out of graduate school and sent to Vietnam. I think it would be hugely savage to make every would-be mother enter motherhood as a slave. Just as the volunteer army is a much better army than a drafted army, a volunteer mother is a much better mother than a slave mother. It is difficult for a slave to love its master.

A bad idea may have terrible consequences. Those who back this idea to enactment in law or even as simply being moral would be responsible for a great deal of harm to mothers, their born children, the men who love them, and to anyone who marvels at the joy of seeing a child come to parents who will love it and lovingly continue to cherish its development as an independently thinking and acting human being.

Which, by the way, is a huge undertaking. I have 3 children and though the youngest is 19, I am still often busy with being their father. Not to mention that I hope to finish paying their college education bills before I die. Volunteering to have a child is a big deal. It is a good thing that I was able to do it as a volunteer, rather than as a slave. Nonetheless, it was sometiimes clear even so that the state, usually through the public school system, viewed me largely as a slave to them and what they thought I should be doing for my children. Basically that was that I should convince my children that the teachers and the school system were their perfect masters. This conflicted with my obligation to teach them to think independently, which was clearly contrary to the interests of the school system.

[BAMF]

Charles: "I think it would be hugely savage to make every would-be mother enter motherhood as a slave. Just as the volunteer army is a much better army than a drafted army, a volunteer mother is a much better mother than a slave mother. It is difficult for a slave to love its master."

Loved that! ^

But, then there's always the "Well, you could just give it up for adoption."

[Fran]

My hackles rose on this.

No contraception is 100% reliable and removing the ovaries or womb has serious consequences for the woman's health (the potential killer osteoporosis being one of them). Removing just the womb makes the ovaries stop working after a few years.

If you force a woman to carry the baby to full term and that pregnancy or childbirth kills her (as it does 1 in 10,000 women every year), does that not constitute as murder of the mother?

My life is my own. My body is my own. I am not some potential biological baby-making machine. If contraception fails I have no choice over whether I become pregnant or not, it is my body working against me, therefore why should I suffer the consequences of something that is outside of my volitional control?

I am not prepared to give up sex, one of the most wonderful human experiences, to eliminate the risk of pregnancy. All I can do is use contraception and if I do become pregnant have an abortion whilst it is at the earliest stage of development. I would never force any woman to have a child against her wishes.

I would like to add: either my life is my own, or it is not. No caveats.

Edited December 1, 2006 by Fran

[Charles R. Anderson]

And there are many women who share Fran's strong feelings on this matter. There are many men who love these many women who will stand by them when the State comes to take them away as murderers. The loss of life will be terrible to behold.

The proposal that the right to life should be extended to a fetus when its heart starts beating or it has its first neural interaction in its brain is both wrong and totally impossible to implement.

[Fran]

But, then there's always the "Well, you could just give it up for adoption."

Because pregnancy is NOT just a simple, walk in the park with no risk of death, no pain, no discomfort, no post-natal depression, no weight-gain, no upheaval, no potential long-term health complications (incontinence and backache being just two of them) for the mother.

I have an irreplaceable, finite life and I do not want to sacrifice 18 months of it (9 months pregnant and a further 9 months to recover) feeling dreadful and putting on a huge amount of weight which I will find hard to shift, for somebody else. The pregnancy or childbirth may also kill me, of course.

It just seems odd to me that we don't expect people to sacrifice 18 months of their irreplaceable lives living in Africa with the heat, flies, diseases, and parasites, preventing a baby from starving to death, so why do we expect a mother to sacrifice 18 months of her life for a ball of cells (which, biologically, is a parasite on her body anyway)?

Edited December 1, 2006 by Fran

[blackhorse]

Fran-"parasite on her body"??? That type of comment comes from the same people who think that all sex is rape. I'm having a difficult time trying to see how you can put starving diseased children who have been put in that situation through no fault of their own along with abortion. Are you saying that it is ok to have an abortion 1 hour before birth, but not ok to kill the baby 10 minutes after it's been born?-Just because the location has modified and it now breathes air?

I appreciate Objectivism because of its ethics of reason and love of life. Developing human life included. (other than rape, incest, or the mothers life where she has been grossly violated or she will die) if individuals cannot respect the dignity of potential life and the great person that that developing child may be someday, innocent and untouched by the evil in the world, than how can we be expected to respect those that are alive an breathing with all of their faults?`If you would say that a pregnent woman has a parasite, well what does that say about your respect for and honor of your fellow man?

Edited December 1, 2006 by blackhorse

[Danneskjold]

Try, for the sake of argument, to imagine that you never wanted children in your life. Or try to put yourself in the shoes of someone who doesn't want children.

Would you really suggest that you (or that person) lead a completely, 100 percent celibate life so that there would be no chance whatsoever of an unintended pregnancy?

Forego forever and completely the consummation of romantic love, one of the two greatest joys known to human beings?

Visectomy for a guy, tubes tied for a girl.

As is very often the case, the subject of abortion draws passionate responses.

In this case the passion rose to such heights that the mother's living tissue of the fetus was placed only in comparison to her living hair, but not in comparison to her living ovaries, kidneys, heart, or brain. Choose to rephase an argument that the fetus is a part of her body into its only being her hair and you are off to the races with a straw man to knock down. Interesting though that we do not dictate hair styles to women or tell them that they cannot cut their hair, but we can tell them that they must nourish a fetus for 9 months or some such time.

Forgive me for blanketing all of those body parts under hair. I figured that attacking one example of something that is alive but will never turn into a human would be enough. Apparently not. If you would like me to take on each example you gave me of a bodily organ, all of which are missing the same thing the hair is, just tell me and I will do so in a later post. However this seems like a painful waste of time.

carbon-and-water-based, are cellular with complex organization, undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, respond to stimuli, reproduce and, through natural selection, adapt in succeeding generations.

These are the things required to call something alive. A fetus/human has the capacity to do all these things in given time. A kidney, spleen, heart, and such others do not on their own. Therefore those organs you named are not alive. Although the cells that make up these organs are alive, the organs themselves are not in the same way that humans are alive, but their community is not a living entity. Humans are alive because they do have these abilities.

I'll respond further later today. For now this is all I have.

[Danneskjold]

It is clear that a fetus is a part of a woman's body. That fact should not be ignored. It is interesting to note the many stages of development of a fetus on its path to becoming a human being. The times when the heart starts beating or when some brain functions become evident are important events in the development of the child's potential to become a human being. Of course, that moment when the egg is fertilized is also an important event. So are those moments when an infant can be sustained in life under intensive hospital care if it is born prematurely. Then there is also that glorious moment of birth when everything has gone well and a baby is born fully able to breathe and nurse at its mother's breasts. These are all stages of development and it really is rather arbitrary which of them becomes that moment when we attribute some extra measure of life to a fetus/baby. But the status of the fetus as a part of a woman's body is clear. That is of particular moment.

We are not talking about "important events". We are talking about which event defines a fetus as human. The logical ones would be brain and heart activity.

Now, let us suppose that some women still make up their minds to have an abortion just after the legal boundary, perhaps the father has just announced he is not yet ready to be a real father. Or, maybe the pregnancy self-aborts, as many do. A pregnancy-monitoring social worker swoops down to avenge the death of a human being in either case, not knowing how to determine is the abortion was natural or performed by some doctor or some quack. The once pregnant woman has no healthy, living fetus to use as evidence to defend herself, so she is convicted of murder and executed. Or is it to be merely life in prision? So, the more thoughtful women who might become pregnant will soon learn that it cannot be really proven that they were pregnant, if they avoided establishing a medical record of the fact. So, especially in those early weeks of pregnancy when many pregnancies self-abort, it becomes wise to avoid going to a doctor for any check-ups, for any medical reason. If no one knows you are pregnant, then you are safe from the avenging social workers. Or so you hope.

But not for long, since soon the social workers propose a law that every woman of child-bearing age will have a manditory medical check-up every 4, 6, or 10 weeks. Then, imagine the wickedness that anyone who is unhappy with a woman can do by accusing her of having an abortion and requiring her to prove that she did not? Witch hunts will occur. OK, maybe the accuser has to provide the proof, but what is adequate proof? Some real problems will arise here.

Well, let's start with eliminating the social worker from your scenario. Let's assume that we, instead of cracking down on pregnant women, crack down on the abortionists. Now, the enforcement of any law against abortion is a problem when it comes to a person aborting their own baby. To that I would say that it's better to let those few go than to create a nanny state. However my brain is slightly fried from Spanish 2 class right now so I'm having a bit of trouble thinking of a solution to many of these problems. I will, however, agree that enforcement would be a problem.

[Kat]

I find it hard to believe that people here would want to give the state any more power over people's personal lives. Pro-life arguments usually come from the religionists who want to keep sodomy laws on the books so it seems odd hearing it from Objectivists. I am far from an anarchist and I personally believe that abortion should be performed only in the first trimester, but the thought of having the government enforce this is very scary to me.

I also find that pro-life arguments coming from men ring hollow with me simply because they will never have to face it head on. Speaking from experience, pregnancy is hell, and there is absolutely no life event in a man's life that can even compare with the situation of a woman having to bear children against her wishes by force of law. The man who impregnated her would get off scot-free. Making abortion illegal could be enough to drive some woman to suicide, infanticide, abuse or neglect of the child. It will be like prohibition or drugs, people will do it illegally. Pregnant women would be monitored by the state and be little more than government regulated breeders in the eyes of the law. There goes equality. I also imagine a huge rise in discrimination suits against employers who rightfully would be hesitant to hire women of child-bearing age. Everyone would pay as healthcare premiums and social spending would rise dramatically.

If abortion were illegal, every pregnancy would have to go to term and then if the baby is not welcomed by the mother, the baby is put up for adoption or into some type of state care. Adoption is a joke in this country and is nearly impossible for many families (who would be fine parents if they went the biological route) as they cannot qualify as adoptive parents, cannot afford it or hit a brick wall in the process. Try adopting a white baby without special needs. Both families I know of that have adopted were very affluent and one couple ended up going to China and adopting a little girl and the other family adopted a baby with severe medical issues. The adoption system needs major reform before I could recommend a mother to choose it over abortion. Families that should be able to adopt are stuck in the foster parenting kiddie-go-round instead of adopting a child of their own. I suppose we could outlaw abortion and flood the market with unwanted babies. I doubt that would increase the proportion of healthy white babies by much, though, as I suspect there would be a huge increase in middle class and affluent white women having "miscarriages" during the first trimester. I also think that outlawing abortion would be an a government attack on individual liberty, especially when you can stop an unwanted pregnancy by taking a couple of pills or undergoing a very minor surgical procedure.

What kind of life lies ahead for unwanted children and their mothers? Why have children you don't want when medical science gives you the option not to?

What if you want to pursue other things like a career or live a lifestyle that is not child friendly? What if you don't want to face the prospect of single parenthoood? What if you don't want to give the state more power over your life? Charles had a good point about schools. I am a single parent with a special ed kid. I have seen the nanny state and it is not pretty. Because I had children when I was married, I have to get the court's and my ex-husband's approval to move out of my county with the kids, even though he has only seen them twice in the last four years. Unless a child is in danger, the government should leave families alone.

Leave reproductive rights in the hands of the individual. I believe that people are rational enough to decide whether or not they are ready to have children and abortion should not be a criminal offense. It is an agonizing choice for most women and not a birth control method. We have to trust the individual to make the best choice for their individual situation. Bill Clinton was right about one thing. He said that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I agree.

Kat

[Danneskjold]

The argument for me doesn't lie in reproductive rights, it lies in right to life.

I'd post more but I have to go to my next class. Study hall is wonderful.

[Judith]

I said above that this issue is so subjective that science will never settle it. I should add that I believe it to be so subjective that people will never agree on it. That being the case, I think it is difficult to pass laws on the subject. People are terribly, terribly passionate about it, regardless of their position.

Women have been inducing abortions from prehistoric times. I remember reading somewhere that there are cave or rock drawings of pregnant women throwing themselves out of trees and pounding their bellies with rocks to induce abortions. No laws will keep a determined woman from finding a way to abort.

Further on the subject of adoption, I wouldn't want a child of my biological origin brought up by other people. I wouldn't trust them to do an adequate job. I'd prefer to terminate the pregnancy before the zygote/embryo/fetus matured to the point where I considered it old enough to care about.

And, as I said above, I understand completely how people on the other side of the issue feel about the matter. I can see how they would want to leap to the rescue of what they consider to be murdered babies.

There are no easy answers. There won't be until we invent some method for a woman to control her reproductive system to the point where she doesn't get pregnant unless and until she makes a conscious decision to do so. I'd love it if the reproductive systems of people of both sexes were turned off at birth, and we had to make a conscious decision to turn them on to make a baby. No paternity suits, no unwanted pregnancies....

Judith

Edited December 1, 2006 by Judith

[Danneskjold]

I'm with Judith, but from the opposite angle. People will be convinced this way or that, and I don't believe a truly clear majority with a position based on logic will ever rise. I believe there is one answer but that humanity will never come to a conclusion on it anyways. That's really part of what's fun in topic-creating. A match where both sides have equal points, on the same foundation, and are trying to achieve the same goal.

[Charles R. Anderson]

The creation of new human life is such a miracle that until recently all men assumed it was a miracle performed by God. Some still do. But we now understand that it is a miracle performed, at great effort, by women. Since the god-like power to create life is actually the power of being a woman, every woman is a goddess. Any man who does not realize this is being a bit simple.

That's really part of what's fun in topic-creating. A match where both sides have equal points, on the same foundation, and are trying to achieve the same goal.

Danneskjold, this is not just a debate game. What is at stake is the well-being of women generally, mothers and fathers in particular, and the children who are born to them. These are important issues, especially when you propose creating a new, highly extended definition of murder and wish to apply it exclusively to women.

In your Post #33, three quotes are given without attribution. The middle quote only is from my comments. Your response to my noting that your earlier comment that the fetus is living and therefore has the rights of a human being was inadequate justification because there are many other parts of a pregnant woman that are living also has not really addressed the issue of when the right to life takes hold. Yes, a fetus has the potential to become a human being, if the mother chooses to allow that part of her body to develop to the point that it is ready for birth. Until that time, the fetus may have a heart and may have a brain, but it is still an integral part of the woman. As I pointed out, her body becomes devoted to nourishing that fetus and her body undergoes extensive changes in order to do that. There are weight gains, hormonal changes, morning sickness, back pains, not infrequent mood changes, and much, much more. All this because a woman has chosen to allow her second heart and her second brain to develop to an eventual early stage human being at birth. There is no way to extend the right to life to this part of her body without imposing tyrannical obligations upon her. This attempt is a gross violation of the goddess principle. This error is also a parallel to the mind/body dichotomy. In this case, you are trying split her body into two parts and then setting the interests of each part against the other part. They are one, until the fetus is ready for birth. Do not split them asunder.

In your Post #34 you again assert that a heart beat or brain activity make a fetus human and give it independent rights. Why do you think this is the case? Why do you not know which it is that is the critical event?

Again in your Post #34, you allow that there will be problems of enforcement. Yes, they will be massive. You suggest outlawing the activity of the abortionists, which would of course follow from declaring abortions murder. In addition, it would follow that the pregnant woman having an abortion was a murderer and we have long tradtions for the punishment of murderers. Are you really prepared for society to carry out those traditions? Your comments on this suggest that that would be too much for you. This is good, but once you define the act of murder, the consequences will follow.

This is a difficult matter. We all love human life and we all appreciate its potential. Once a fetus has overcome the natural obstacles of the first few weeks, we all recognize the potential of a new and exciting human life resulting from its continued development. It is our natural, evolution re-inforced, tendency to be pulling for its success. We are benevolent people. But, one person among us pays almost all the costs of this early development process and that is the woman who has made it a part of her body. She has the sole and exclusive property right to her body, to all of it. It should be up to her whether she will lavish her goddess-like powers upon the nurturing of the fetal part of her body.

Alright, I am just a man. What do I know? But, I was aware of my mother being pregnant six times and successfully giving birth to three of my younger sisters and my brother. She had two miscarriages that I know of when I was aware that she was pregnant, one at about 5 or 6 months. That is very hard. Before I was born, she went full term and had still-born twins. Sometimes she was pregnant when my father was at sea with the Navy and I was the man of the house. I did what I could to help her, but it was always frustrating to see how hard it was on her and to be able to help so little.

My wife Anna gave me three daughters, but the cost was very high. Our first daughter was born when we had a 14.5 % mortgage and nearly all of my pay went to paying the mortgage. Anna stopped working to raise Kirsten until she was old enough to go to daycare, but the cost of that was nearly equal to her pay. So, we decided she needed better pay than she could get as a medical research technician, so she started Pharmacy School. She took a year off to give birth to and take care of Karen, then another year off to give birth to and care for Katie. She had to deal with post-partum depression and permanent weight gains. Few people can imagine how difficult this made getting her Pharmacy degree. For years, we had two children in daycare at an expense nearly equal to our mortgage. But, Anna made the choice to do this and I will forever be grateful.

If you are going to have children, it sure is best that two commited people have signed on as fully willing volunteers to take the raising of children upon themselves. If you have never been a parent, it is very hard to appreciate the effort involved. Having never been pregnant, it is clear that men will never know the costs and effort involved. Women rightly point this out. Let them set the agenda on pregnancy issues.

[Charles R. Anderson]

Kat,

Thanks for your post. I thought it well-thought out and I enjoyed having an ally here. It was good to hear a mother's perspective.

[Danneskjold]

In your Post #34 you again assert that a heart beat or brain activity make a fetus human and give it independent rights. Why do you think this is the case? Why do you not know which it is that is the critical event?

I think this is the case because heart and brain activity are what decides if you're dead or alive. Therefore it would make sense to have it decide whether a baby is a living thing, human, or a non-human.

As to why I don't know which is the critical event...Well, the obvious reason would be because I'm a 16 year old. Also, I have not given much thought to which one. I am leaning towards brain activity. (week 8 or 9)

In your Post #33, three quotes are given without attribution. The middle quote only is from my comments. Your response to my noting that your earlier comment that the fetus is living and therefore has the rights of a human being was inadequate justification because there are many other parts of a pregnant woman that are living also has not really addressed the issue of when the right to life takes hold. Yes, a fetus has the potential to become a human being, if the mother chooses to allow that part of her body to develop to the point that it is ready for birth. Until that time, the fetus may have a heart and may have a brain, but it is still an integral part of the woman. As I pointed out, her body becomes devoted to nourishing that fetus and her body undergoes extensive changes in order to do that. There are weight gains, hormonal changes, morning sickness, back pains, not infrequent mood changes, and much, much more. All this because a woman has chosen to allow her second heart and her second brain to develop to an eventual early stage human being at birth. There is no way to extend the right to life to this part of her body without imposing tyrannical obligations upon her. This attempt is a gross violation of the goddess principle. This error is also a parallel to the mind/body dichotomy. In this case, you are trying split her body into two parts and then setting the interests of each part against the other part. They are one, until the fetus is ready for birth. Do not split them asunder.

The three quotes were from:

1)(I believe) One of Fran's earlier posts

2)Your quote talking about how

3) Wikipedia (unreliable, but I verified this one with my science book) definition of life.

Again in your Post #34, you allow that there will be problems of enforcement. Yes, they will be massive. You suggest outlawing the activity of the abortionists, which would of course follow from declaring abortions murder. In addition, it would follow that the pregnant woman having an abortion was a murderer and we have long tradtions for the punishment of murderers. Are you really prepared for society to carry out those traditions? Your comments on this suggest that that would be too much for you. This is good, but once you define the act of murder, the consequences will follow.

I couldn't agree with this more. But does its feasibility as law change whether it is or is not ethical? We are debating its ethics, not the possibility of it becoming a law. I realize I have created the assumption that it is and should be illegal and considered murder. I realize now that that is not fully realizable as of any strategy I have seen at this point in time.

Danneskjold, this is not just a debate game. What is at stake is the well-being of women generally, mothers and fathers in particular, and the children who are born to them. These are important issues, especially when you propose creating a new, highly extended definition of murder and wish to apply it exclusively to women.

I believe you're wrong on this one. This is a forum, a place for open debate. We are not deciding the future of people's lives, we are putting our views on the table in hopes of at the most winning supporters and at the least coming out with the benefit of more knowledge. We aren't Congress. We're Objectivist Living.

Sorry for the generally inadequacy of response. My brain is fried after my football game.

[Brant Gaede]

Dan, why does the question of whether the fetus is dead or alive bear on the issue of abortion? Btw, when is the fetus "dead?" And how does a "dead" fetus become "alive?" I know the implication is that being alive means right to life, but a horse is alive, for instance. Does it have a right to life?

--Brant

edit: Going quickly back over all of Dan's posts on this thread, I can't find an instance in which he used the word "dead" in regard to a fetus in the womb. My apologies.

--BG

Edited December 2, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Rich Engle]

Abortion is a nightmare. Find me one person that has come away from a nice D&C feeling like Mr. or Mrs. Happy Pants. It sucks. Nothing like suction.

I can't do anything about late-term abortions. Not as long as they make coat hangers.

I've seen horrors, including ones that extend beyond the abortion itself.

And that's all the more reason to keep the Moral Majority a-holes out of it. We've been there before. One word: Tijuana.

It is a sadness, it is a tragedy. And above all, it's not fucking birth control.

I'm not sure there's ever going to be an answer. So far, not so much. Roe v. Wade saved lives, and that's the bottom line. Adult, evolved human lives that could've bled out in some dingy office in Mexico, for instance. That is how it was working. I was around.

We want to teach, educate, encourage. But we cannot enforce. Not here with this one.

Consider the alternatives, there are two. One, leave the barn door wide open. The other, lay down the legal heat. Both suck (no pun intended).

Pro choice, heck yes. That's not the problem. The problem is learning how to choose. How to learn how to not be in the position of having to choose. The problem of how to deal with the choice, if it were had to be made.

rde

been there, lived that

[Judith]

a horse is alive, for instance. Does it have a right to life?

Of course it does. It has already been born. All living things have a right to life. The question is how and whether human laws will protect that life. We have animal cruelty laws on the books protecting domestic animals, but we have no such laws protecting intestinal parasites. That's because we're subjective beings, and horses are lots more important and useful to us that intestinal parasites, which we find disgusting and inimical to us and our animal friends. And that's not a bad thing; our lives and the lives of those like us is, after all, the standard we are using, isn't it?

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

a horse is alive, for instance. Does it have a right to life?

Of course it does. It has already been born. All living things have a right to life. The question is how and whether human laws will protect that life. We have animal cruelty laws on the books protecting domestic animals, but we have no such laws protecting intestinal parasites. That's because we're subjective beings, and horses are lots more important and useful to us that intestinal parasites, which we find disgusting and inimical to us and our animal friends. And that's not a bad thing; our lives and the lives of those like us is, after all, the standard we are using, isn't it?

Judith

Philosophically rights are not granted but are derived from human free-will, conceptual, social nature. Under law they are recognized and protected. Here you are granting a horse rights, necessary because a horse has a quite different nature than a human being. For a horse or any other non-human animal, rights de jure have no de facto for there are no horse philosophers or a legislature of horses passing laws protecting horses' rights, much less human rights. In France they eat horse meat.

--Brant

Edited December 3, 2006 by Brant Gaede

[Judith]

Philosophically rights are not granted but are derived from human free-will, conceptual, social nature. Under law they are recognized and protected. Here you are granting a horse rights, necessary because a horse has a quite different nature than a human being. For a horse or any other non-human animal, rights de jure have no de facto for there are no horse philosophers or a legislature of horses passing laws protecting horses' rights, much less human rights. In France they eat horse meat.

Huh?

Rights aren't "granted" by anyone to anyone. They're inherent.

The fact that a horse can't reason philosophically doesn't mean that a horse doesn't have a right to life. I'm not arguing that a horse has a right to (*wince*) unbridled philosophical discourse, because a horse clearly doesn't have the capacity for it; it's not in its nature. I'm arguing that a horse, like all living things, has a right to life. Insects have a right to life. I choose not to respect that right when they invade my home or when they chew on my flesh outdoors; otherwise, I leave them in peace.

The law is a different matter entirely. Laws can either recognize or fail to recognize rights, or protect or fail to protect rights. They don't "grant" rights.

Who eats what in France is irrelevant. Cannibals eat humans.

I'm not going to carry on this discussion any further, because it clearly is one of semantics -- i.e., the definition of the word "rights".

Judith

[Charles R. Anderson]

I feel a strong bond to other living things. This is especially true for conscious animals, but it is also true for plants. Living things are fascinating and because they strive with a purpose to overcome obstacles, I have a kind of respect for all living things. They have an kind of sanctity, but this is not the same as having rights.

There is still a hierarchy of values. Putting beef, pork, and chicken on the dinner table is worth the slaughter of the cow, pig, or chicken in my mind. They do not have the right to live, but it would be low of me or my agent to kill them for no purpose but the gruesome act of killing a living animal.

Returning to the development of a fetus, as it becomes more and more developed, we naturally see it more and more as a human being. We think that all human beings have the right to life, so we tend to think that it is only natural to extend this right to as early a stage in the development of a human being as possible. But, there is a huge problem with this.

The two most basic aspects of a right are:

1) The right holder cannot be subject to violence or its threatened use in order to prevent the right holder from attempting an action consistent with his right.

2) The right holder cannot impose an obligation to perform a positive act upon another as a means to exercise their right.

Now, if one says a fetus has the right to life from the moment of a heart beat or of brain activity, Condition 1 is not violated. However, Condition 2 is violated whenever a pregnant women decides that she does not want to continue to nourish and maintain the fetus as a part of her body any longer. These acts do require a great effort on her part to maintain the life of the fetus, so the fetus cannot have the right to life.

Of course, we humans generally do value and enjoy the prospect of a fetal part of a woman becoming a good and productive human being. We attribute a kind of sanctity to this form of life. The more developed it becomes, the more sanctity we grant it. But, it does not have the right to life.

Because of this Objectivist concept of rights, many Objectivists argue that a born child does not have the right to demand care from a parent. I think this is true, though I think that parents who do not care for the children they have given birth to are disgusting. What a child does have a right to is the right not to be killed. He does not have the right to be fed, but he does have the right not to have his head bashed in or to be pushed down stairs. In a rights-honoring society, we depend heavily upon the fact that parents who have chosen to carry a child through pregnancy will make the committment to raise that child after birth. This, however, is a voluntary committment. When the parents fail to do this, we try to provide adoptions and foster care, because the child carries a very great sanctity of life for most of us. Again, this is properly a voluntary act on our part.

[Brant Gaede]

Philosophically rights are not granted but are derived from human free-will, conceptual, social nature. Under law they are recognized and protected. Here you are granting a horse rights, necessary because a horse has a quite different nature than a human being. For a horse or any other non-human animal, rights de jure have no de facto for there are no horse philosophers or a legislature of horses passing laws protecting horses' rights, much less human rights. In France they eat horse meat.

Huh?

Rights aren't "granted" by anyone to anyone. They're inherent.

The fact that a horse can't reason philosophically doesn't mean that a horse doesn't have a right to life. I'm not arguing that a horse has a right to (*wince*) unbridled philosophical discourse, because a horse clearly doesn't have the capacity for it; it's not in its nature. I'm arguing that a horse, like all living things, has a right to life. Insects have a right to life. I choose not to respect that right when they invade my home or when they chew on my flesh outdoors; otherwise, I leave them in peace.

The law is a different matter entirely. Laws can either recognize or fail to recognize rights, or protect or fail to protect rights. They don't "grant" rights.

Who eats what in France is irrelevant. Cannibals eat humans.

I'm not going to carry on this discussion any further, because it clearly is one of semantics -- i.e., the definition of the word "rights".

Judith

I didn't say that rights were granted--to humans--only that you were granting them to non-humans. Human rights are not inherent. The need for rights is. A stomach or spleen or liver can be described as "inherent." Not rights, not accurately. Rights are a human invention for inherent human (social) needs. If one is the last person on earth there would be no need or practical existence for rights.

I appreciate that you do not want to engage in a political/philosophical discussion, but not why.

--Brant

[Judith]

I appreciate that you do not want to engage in a political/philosophical discussion, but not why.

(1) end of year deadlines; no time and no intellectual energy for it.

(2) I don't have a lot of patience for semantic hair-splitting. In my 20s I loved that kind of discussion, but I've tired of it over time. I understand the need for it, and I appreciate that there are professional philosophers and armchair philosophers out there to do it; it's just not one of my hobbies anymore.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

I appreciate that you do not want to engage in a political/philosophical discussion, but not why.

(1) end of year deadlines; no time and no intellectual energy for it.

(2) I don't have a lot of patience for semantic hair-splitting. In my 20s I loved that kind of discussion, but I've tired of it over time. I understand the need for it, and I appreciate that there are professional philosophers and armchair philosophers out there to do it; it's just not one of my hobbies anymore.

Judith

Know how you feel. I have so much to do right now I don't have time to write a decent article. I hope for surcease in January.

--Brant