Abortion

[blackhorse]

Objectivism holds man's life as his own to live . But, if one cannot respect and cherish life in its most helpless and earliest stages of development then how can one possibly expect to respect and admire life when it's alive and breathing? It makes no sense.

[sjw]

Objectivism holds man's life as his own to live . But, if one cannot respect and cherish life in its most helpless and earliest stages of development then how can one possibly expect to respect and admire life when it's alive and breathing? It makes no sense.

I hope you do not mean what you just said. If you really mean it, then you must be for using government force to make the woman turn this clump of cells into a baby. Is that the case? If you are not for banning of abortion, then why not given what you just said?

[Roger Bissell]

IMO, the cut-off date for abortion (except when medically necessary to save mother's life, or when baby is anencephalic) should be the third trimester. That gives the woman 6 months to decide on and seek an abortion. It's around 26 weeks when the baby's brain waves become essentially similar to those of adult human beings -- i.e., when the baby starts perceiving and experiencing reality as a holistic, coherent thing. Arguably, this is when the rational faculty begins functioning -- if reason is an integrated sensory-conceptual faculty whose first input is obtained in utero from about the 26th week on.

For further details, see my 1981 Reason magazine essay, "A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments," posted on my website here: A Calm Look at Abortion Arguments

Best to all,

REB

[Brant Gaede]

Where do you draw the line on whether or not it is living. I personally say it is living when the heart starts and the brain starts being active. If you go by once it has the ability to think rationally then you aren't going to be able to define it as human for quite a while after birth. I just think that there should be a logically set time at which having an abortion past that should be illegal. When does a *potential* baby become a baby and why?

Therefore, Jeff, you agree that a woman has a right to have an abortion? Or do you have a different context than individual rights? When in the pregnancy does the heart start beating? The brain become active? (What does that mean, btw?) If it isn't the entire pregnancy, then the woman has a right to an abortion in that part of the pregnancy the brain isn't active and the heart doesn't beat?

If you really have anything to do with Objectivism you can't ignore human (individual) rights. I don't recall one post of yours--correct me if I'm wrong--in which you even refer to individual rights. Whenever I bring this kind of thing up you simply ignore me. You only talk with people who talk in some fashion in a language you recognize and sanction, and quite frankly, I have yet to see anything from you that really resembles Objectivism. You do not seem to be at all grounded in it. I find you dogmatic with a veneer of rationalism. You think but the thoughts always take you back to home base without a walk or a hit to get you there.

--Brant

[sjw]

Where do you draw the line on whether or not it is living. I personally say it is living when the heart starts and the brain starts being active. If you go by once it has the ability to think rationally then you aren't going to be able to define it as human for quite a while after birth. I just think that there should be a logically set time at which having an abortion past that should be illegal. When does a *potential* baby become a baby and why?

You are focusing on the wrong things. The fact that in reality, there's a continuum, does not wipe out the fact that two things are different: the fetus vs. the baby. To distinguish between blue and green, the proper approach is to step back and look at the difference, not stare at every little nuance of color change in between.

[Danneskjold]

So what is the significant difference?

[sjw]

So what is the significant difference?

You don't see a difference between 1, 2, 4, or 8 (or more, up to some limit) dividing cells on one end of the spectrum, and yourself on the other? Don't ask me the question, look at reality. 1 cell isn't a human, 2 cells isn't, 100 cells isn't--so on one end, there *isn't* a human being. That's enough to know the basic answer about morality abortion as such.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... I have yet to see anything from you that really resembles Objectivism. You do not seem to be at all grounded in it.

Brant,

Jeff is still in high school and has only read a couple of Rand's books, much to the chagrin of his mother who apparently is not Objectivism-friendly. His questioning is more striving to understand than it is preaching, albeit his style suits his age at times. He is questioning some very basic premises right now (abortion is one of them) and that is not easy when you have grown up Christian.

I think he is extremely bright and I enjoy making him think. He takes ideas seriously and is not afraid to put himself out on a limb if that's what it takes to remain true to himself. He has even made me think on occasion with some unusual but highly interesting comments.

Michael

[Fran]

... I have yet to see anything from you that really resembles Objectivism. You do not seem to be at all grounded in it.

Brant,

Jeff is still in high school and has only read a couple of Rand's books, much to the chagrin of his mother who apparently is not Objectivism-friendly. His questioning is more striving to understand than it is preaching, albeit his style suits his age at times. He is questioning some very basic premises right now (abortion is one of them) and that is not easy when you have grown up Christian.

I think he is extremely bright and I enjoy making him think. He takes ideas seriously and is not afraid to put himself out on a limb if that's what it takes to remain true to himself. He has even made me think on occasion with some unusual but highly interesting comments.

Michael

Thanks for this clarity Michael, it's really helped me understand Jeff's context.

[jack9f]

I'm coming in late on this discussion, but I'll throw in my two cents. I am encouraged that MSK has allowed Jeff, and others, to continue this debate with his moderating words.

Having grown up in the time of back alley abortions and seeing the difficulty of shotgun marriages, I have come full circle in my support for Roe v Wade to a more reasonable way of looking at the issue. In six pages of discussion much is said of woman’s rights, but I see very little on the individual rights of the male. Extremism seems to be the order of the day, speaking about 100 cells, 10 minutes before birth, and life in prison. Is there nothing in between?

Most recently I signed up to begin receiving a pension and my wife had to sign a release so that I could get a full benefit. Why not something like that for an abortion?

A huge bureaucracy exists to collect child support and alimony from men, with the threat of jail, and to paint men as deadbeats. Where is the equivalent for women?

Just a few questions to keep this debate going.

[Brant Gaede]

... I have yet to see anything from you that really resembles Objectivism. You do not seem to be at all grounded in it.

Brant,

Jeff is still in high school and has only read a couple of Rand's books, much to the chagrin of his mother who apparently is not Objectivism-friendly. His questioning is more striving to understand than it is preaching, albeit his style suits his age at times. He is questioning some very basic premises right now (abortion is one of them) and that is not easy when you have grown up Christian.

I think he is extremely bright and I enjoy making him think. He takes ideas seriously and is not afraid to put himself out on a limb if that's what it takes to remain true to himself. He has even made me think on occasion with some unusual but highly interesting comments.

Michael

Sorry guys. He's bright, all right. I've never seen anything like it. Usually in someone his age and brains you see spikes of intelligence but not the mature balance Jeff brings to these discussions. Jeff, please don't take my previous post the wrong way. Keep on trucking.

--Brant

[Danneskjold]

Jeff is still in high school and has only read a couple of Rand's books, much to the chagrin of his mother who apparently is not Objectivism-friendly.

Explanation, not an excuse for being irrational. I think for myself, explanations and excuses as to why I think what I think regarding my environment detract from me as an individual. I am not my mother, I am independent of her and accepted her beliefs in the past and am therefore responsible for how I am now. I'm pursuing rational thought, though part of being rational is figuring it out on my own after all.

Just to clarify to all, my personal belief is that early on the baby is not a human being. Right now I am asking what the significant defining step is in becoming a human being in your opinions. I have always considered it to be when the heart starts pumping blood and brain activity starts for the reason that people are declared dead when those stop. However, upon thought I realize that the continuation of brain and heart activity in a full grown human being are dependent upon factors that a baby is not dependent on. One example of this would be breathing air.

[Roger Bissell]

Jeff, you ask good questions about this issue, and your thinking is definitely in the ballpark. My ballpark, anyway! "Brain birth" is the criterion offered, in parallel to "brain death," by some neurosurgeons and ethicists. This idea was offered in the mid-to-late 1970s, not long after Roe v. Wade put attention on the idea of "viability." Rather than heart-lung viability, the idea is brain viability, in the sense of a brain that is functioning on the same level as adult humans. The EEG readings of 3rd trimester fetuses and premature babies show such brain waves, while EEG's of 2nd trimester and earlier fetuses do not.

Just to clarify one point, though: the fetus is ALWAYS ~genetically~ human. The DNA does not change from conception to viability to birth. The issue is human ~functioning~, which means the beginning of the functioning of the rational faculty. A rational faculty is the power of a brain to perceive reality and to integrate those perceptions into concepts and principles. It begins operating at about the beginning of the 7th month (3rd trimester) of pregnancy, gathering tons of perceptual data (mostly tactile and positional, but some auditory) which later are integrated, along with all the additional (including visual) data that is gained after birth -- to form concepts &c. Anyway, that is my argument for when we become rational beings.

Last year, while I was still active on the Rebirth of Reason website, I made a number of posts about the abortion issue, including some reposts of a still earlier discussion on RoR. I'll post those following this, in hope that they will provide some additional clarification to you and others interested in this issue. Bear in mind that the 2006 RoR discussion was triggered by a news item about a "pregnancy fraud" and child-support controversy, so some of the rhetoric gets a bit heated and somewhat tangential to the abortion issue itself.

Best,

REB

[sjw]

Just to clarify to all, my personal belief is that early on the baby is not a human being.

So, you're pro-choice at least for the early term, and undecided about the later stages then?

[Roger Bissell]

March 12, 2006

Aaron wrote:

Sage advice, but easier said than done. Very few urologists will perform a vasectomy on someone who's not over a certain age, married and who's already bred a couple times. If you're under 25 and childless, good luck finding someone willing to perform one.

Luke commented:

Is this based on a personal search, young buck, or on empirical studies? In any case, I am not terribly surprised. They will not do it for married men without the written consent of their wives, either. As far as I know, a woman can get an abortion without permission of her husband, however. Does this strike anyone else as a double standard?

Not me. The parallel would actually be vasectomies and tubal ligations, which are both operations that surgically block one's ability to deliver sexual reproductive cells to those of one's sexual partner for fertilization. Both of these operations should be legal, though it should also be the perogative of the physician as to whether to perform it for a given person.

If marriages were actual written contracts, with such things explicitly spelled out, spouses could legally hold each other to having or not having such operations -- or to re-negotiating the terms of their marital contract -- or to dissolving the marriage, if no agreement could be maintained, and the potential problems or disappointments were sufficiently severe as to be unacceptable to one or both partners.

As for Luke's question: because the process of post-fertilization reproduction is very non-symmetrical, there really is no good parallel right for men that mirrors a woman's right to abortion. In my opinion, however, there is a fairly well discernable boundary point that ought to be a good sorting basis for many of these issues of responsibility for support and permissibility of abortion.

It has been well established (for 30 years or so now) that "brain birth" and physical viability of fetuses is accomplished by the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy. At that point, we have a creature that is just as well brain developed and able to survive outside the mother's body as the premature babies whose status as human beings and whose rights to life are already recognized by law. Thus, a third-trimester fetus, who is capable of independent existence outside the mother's body, but is not yet in fact outside the mother's body, also ought to be recognized as human and protected by law. (I think this was also addressed in Roe v. Wade.)

Because of this, I think that third-trimester abortions should be outlawed, except when the mother's life is in danger. Husbands or committed fathers would certainly be legally entitled -- not to mention, morally obliged -- to call upon the government to intervene if his mate were to try to destroy a fetus that was capable of being born into the world.

Prior to the third trimester, however, I think the legal decisions about abortion are entirely the woman's. The fetus has not yet begun the operation of its rational faculty (which takes in sense data and forms percepts that are later integrated into concepts), a process that only begins after the second trimester of fetal development. (Brain scans of fetuses and observation of premature babies bear this out.) So, there is no human being (qua being with a functioning rational faculty) to intervene on behalf of. Hence, no third-party defense rights for male partners or government during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. (Again, Roe v. Wade is consistent with this view.)

The situation that got this whole discussion started is a really egregious case. There is no doubt in my mind that women who fraudulently entrap men into impregnating them deserve no financial assistance, period. It's too bad that the babies (if they carry them to term) have to suffer -- but then, maybe there should be a law saying that babies conceived through fraud on the part of the mother are to become wards of the state and placed for adoption. Such a mother has certainly proved at the outset that she is morally unfit to be a mother. The only question is whether it could be established that she was an objective danger to the well-being of the child, considering her callousness in creating the child and its helpless state through an act of fraud.

Interesting stuff to chew on.

REB

March 14, 2006

...there are women who, on principle, would rather kill a baby they don't want that is near-term (say 8th month, with a partial-birth abortion), rather than "submit" to a Caesarean or natural delivery in order to allow the survivable baby to live. This is what passes for "principled" advocacy among die-hard pro-choice advocates. Arrrgh.

Isn't it ironic: the same reasoning that is used to justify killing a near-term fetus that is CAPABLE of surviving independently of the mother's body and COULD survive independently given a fairly brief medical procedure -- that same reasoning could be used to justify killing a sleeping man who is CAPABLE of engaging in rational thought and COULD engage in rational thought given a brief period to wake up.

Moral: don't fall asleep at Planned Parenthood! Or in the homes of some Objectivists and Libertarians. :-/

REB

March 15, 2006

I previously wrote:

given a fairly brief medical procedure

Robert Malcom opined:

In other words - it really ISN'T in survivable mode.....

No more or less than is the man sleeping soundly in rational mode. Both the sleeping man and the late-term fetus can be brought to actuality (actual rational functioning and actual physical individuality) in a matter of minutes.

So, "in other words," a late-term fetus is just as "surviv-able" (or individualiz-able) as a sleeping man is "rational-able."

Robert, we are talking about 8th and 9th month fetuses that are BETTER developed cognitively and BETTER able to survive as individuals outside the mother's body than even younger prematurely born fetuses.

I don't know your position on "equal protection under the law," but it would seem a straightforward exercise of logic that well-developed, near-term fetuses ought to receive the same legal protection already provided to less-well-developed, prematurely born babies.

And Teresa, thank you for your supportive comments. I know Robert is just trying to "dot the i" on the logic of the discussion, but there are plenty of folks out there who really are out to lunch on the issue of third-trimester abortion. And you are very right that Rand would (and did) agree that there is a serious question about a fetus's rights in the third trimester, unlike the earlier stages of pregnancy.

Now that I think of it, it would be a good idea to post some of my recent thoughts on that issue (since it pertains to Rand's various quoted comments in Ayn Rand Answers). Stay tuned.

REB

March 15, 2006

OK, the following three posts from SoloHq, November 2005 present my analysis of Rand's position on late-term abortion. Comments are welcome...REB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Here is my post from November 4, 2005 (11:50 pm pdt), #10 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

In Post 1, Robert Davison wrote:

I found your article well written and cogent. One small quibble to say that Rand "advocated abortion on demand" is an exaggeration.

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.-Ayn Rand

In Post 4, Adam Reed commented:

The quote you cite comes from a time when Ayn Rand was still ignorant of key facts about the need for interaction with the environment for the development of consciousness. She later made it clear that abortion at will is an absolute right until the fetus/infant develops an independent consciousness.

And in Post 9, Adam replied to Neil Parille:

Neil, and anyone else inclined to remake Ayn Rand into a ConSymp: Give up. "Ayn Rand Answers" is out, and Ayn Rand's own position is clearly stated on page 64. There are many other opinions in the book that make chopped liver out of any TOC-style compromise with Conservatives.

Speaking of "compromise with Conservatives," wouldn't that include joining them in opposition to partial-birth abortions of late-term fetuses? Surely, that's not something Rand would have done or condoned others doing. Yet, here is what Rand said, in one of her later opinions, as reported in Ayn Rand Answers:

...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 basic principles here are: never sacrifice the living to the nonliving, and never confuse an actuality with a potentiality. An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human, it's not a living entity, it has no rights...(Ford Hall Forum QA, 1974, emphasis added)

When Rand was relatively ignorant about fetal development and entertained the idea that an "embryo is perhaps potentially conscious" at about three months into the pregnancy, she suggested (Ford Hall Forum QA, 1967) that "before that point, there is no rational, moral, or semi-humane argument that could be made in favor of forbidding abortion." This remarkable statement implies that she considered the rationality, morality, and humaneness of such arguments to be at least theoretically plausible for the later stages of pregnancy. And her comments from 1974 about "abortion at the last minute" reveal that she had come a long way, indeed, toward acknowledging that late-term fetuses are indeed formed living entities with rights.

And is this really so horrifying or obnoxious a conclusion to come to, considering that premature babies born quite a bit earlier than some victims of partial-birth abortion are nonetheless recognized as having the right to life? If it's obvious that preemies are formed living entities with the right to life, what is the obstacle to acknowledging the same rights for yet-to-be-born fetuses who are even more formed than their premature counterparts?

REB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Here is my post from November 5, 2005 (11:00 pm pdt), #15 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

Adam Reed says that Tibor and I cannot honestly interpret Rand's views as implying an objection to late-term abortion. That is philosophical and rhetorical balderdash!

Interestingly, while I cited Rand's admission that a late-term fetus was a formed individual as being made in 1974, Adam counters by quoting Rand without noting that those comments were made in 1967 and 1969! I am incredulous that Adam, who was discounting Rand's 1960s view on fetal ("embryo") consciousness as being superceded by her later views, is now relying on her earlier views. Just who is engaging in speculation and spin here?

While I will not stoop to Adam's level of rhetoric, I think that HONESTY and FAIRNESS dictates that we give at least equal weight to Rand's LATER COMMENTS, which clearly indicate that she was troubled deeply by the thought that some women would try to justify "last-minute" abortions, "when a baby is formed," and not just those that were "severely defective."

Adam also omits Rand's later comments, from 1973, about the rights of severely retarded individuals. In answer to the question "Do severely retarded individuals have rights?" Rand replied:

Not actual rights -- not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones....[p. 4]

If the severely retarded have the right to be protected like children, then they have that right at the same point that normal children do -- once they are formed and able to be born. Rand's overheated 1969 rhetoric about a "healthy mother" being "made to live for a subnormal, mindless child whom one cannot face is sacrifice and drudgery without a goal" (p. 129) is thankfully moderated 5 years later. Apparently she realized that just as normal babies can be given up for adoption by those unwilling or unable to care for them, so can "subnormal mindless" children -- and that "subnormal mindless" children have human potential, too (as she noted in 1974). Too bad that Adam did not pick up on this development in her sensitivity and thinking.

Again, if premature babies have rights, whether or not they are retarded, then those who are still in the womb but further developed also have rights. And this is so, even though they are still part of their mother's body. The essential factor in whether or not a particular fetus is an individual with rights is not its being no longer part of another's body. It is its no longer being unable to survive without being part of another's body. Once a fetus is capable of survival outside the mother's body, it is, for all intents and purposes, an individual with rights. The only thing that can supercede those rights is the physical survival of the mother, and that hardly ever (never?) necessitates a partial-birth abortion as against a Caesarian delivery. That is why Tibor said, and I agree with him, that partial-birth abortion of late-term fetuses is tantamount to infanticide.

REB

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Here is my post from November 6, 2005 (7:59 pm pdt), #19 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

Adam Reed wrote:

As I wrote elsewhere, I view Rand's abandonment of the integration of philosophy with the sciences (at some point between 1969 and 1973) as a retrogression and a mistake. By 1974, and possibly some years earlier, Rand had broken contact with Robert Efron, and had no one who could help her ground her assumptions in the facts of cognitive and biological science.

Adam, do you really believe that, without the guidance of a neurophysiologist, Rand was unable to learn of and grasp the concept of “fetal viability”? That is, after all, what she was talking about in her 1974 Ford Hall Forum comments:

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 basic principles here are: never sacrifice the living to the nonliving, and never confuse an actuality with a potentiality. An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human, it's not a living entity, it has no rights...(Ford Hall Forum QA, 1974, emphasis added)

Surely, with Rand’s intense interest in the subject, she was well aware of Roe v. Wade, decided by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, just months before Rand’s above-quoted remarks about the stage of pregnancy where “a baby is formed.” Surely, she would have read had occasion to read and ponder these passages from the Blackmun majority opinion (emphasis added):

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25.

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

…the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."…With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother.

Adam writes further:

The fact remains that a statement which specifically addresses the issue in question trumps conjectures from subsequent vagueness. The vagueness is more likely a result of Rand's loss of contact and integration with science. This is a loss of grounding and not a principled change in Rand's position.

Says you, Adam. It's clear to me that Rand’s 1974 position was well grounded and closely paralleled the Supreme Court opinion. And with good reason. The Court, in one of its too infrequent flashes of wisdom actually set up the approximately correct dividing line establishing the right to life of third-trimester fetuses. Rand, to her credit, assimilated this decision and modified her own views accordingly. Nothing vague about her 1974 comments at all.

Adam again:

The facts of reality that grounded Rand's 1969 position start with the classic studies of Held and Hein (1963) which showed that when kittens were prevented from actively exploring the visual world, even though they received the same visual stimulation as their normal counterparts, they failed to develop normal visual perception - and failed to develop the brain structures necessary for perception. But, as Rand often said, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. This requires perception - and perception requires active interaction with objects in the environment, which is not possible until after birth.

This is a gross misinterpretation of Held/Hein (1963). What their study shows is what motor deprivation does for the development of perception after birth. It does not at all establish what Adam claims, namely, that perception does not exist before birth. In fact, as was established in the mid to late 1970s and reported by Stephen Rose in The Conscious Brain and in newspaper articles at the time which interviewed the chief researcher in this area, Dominic Purpura, the fetal brain is already engaging in patterned awareness of reality by about the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy. Late-term fetuses have brain waves essentially like those of premature babies and full-term babies and adults, and essentially unlike those of earlier fetuses. They are not passive little lumps inside the mother’s body. How on earth could you assume that they are not, in albeit limited fashion, engaging in “active interaction” with their environment? They suck their thumbs, they kick out at the mother’s body, they change position at the most embarrassing times (for the mother), etc. Granted, their perceptual awareness is a pale shadow of the richness that awaits them “on the outside,” but they are not cognitive blank slates at birth. It may or may not be true that singing a particular tune over and over to your baby in the womb is etched in the baby’s memory, as some research claims. But at birth, babies hit the ground running – well, so to speak. They are not “tabula rasa.”

Adam, once more:

Once Rand lost touch with Robert Efron, and thus with the grounding of her position in the facts of reality, she did become more vague and uncertain. But the core of Rand's philosophy is primacy of existence - which means that the uncertain Rand of 1974, the Rand who by then lost contact with science, is - to the extent that she changed her position to one less well grounded in the facts of reality - not the true Rand.

I wish the "true Rand" were still alive and could kick your ass for saying that, Adam. There is nothing “vague and uncertain” about her informed views of 1974. The Supreme Court’s views were grounded in reality, and so were Rand’s, and the subsequent findings of Purpura et al only served to more firmly establish that the “bright line” for individual rights is not birth, but the third trimester, when, in Rand's unequivocal words, "a baby is formed.

March 20, 2006

What is the difference between fraudulent entrapment (deceiving a man into getting you pregnant) and rape (forcing a woman to become pregnant)? The answer is that -- while Roe v. Wade is still in effect -- a woman has the freedom to seek and abortion, and thus cannot be forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against her will (by rape), while this poor sap in Michigan is very much in jeopardy of being forced to assume responsibility for a child who was conceived against his will (apparently by fraudulent entrapment).

Teresa is right -- I have a lot of kids: four by natural birth and one by adoption, as well as two great step-kids. My older daughter has three children, and my second son and his wife have one on the way, so I am a granddad almost 4 times over, well before I'm 60. (So, boo-hoo, Teresa. :-) These children have all been "wanted," and they are all loved. However, I can tell you, with no qualms whatsoever, that if I had found out "in time" (i.e., before emotional bonding with the children had occurred) that any of my wives had deceived me into thinking that a child conceived with some other man were mine, I would have done whatever was necessary (probably leaving the country) in order to cut her off without a cent from me. She and the taxpayers, or whoever felt generous about it, would have picked up the consequences of her actions, not me. And if I had found out about it too late to stall off the bonding with the child, I would have divorced her and supported the child, but not paid a cent of spousal support to her (again, leaving the country, if necessary). That's how strongly I feel about the issue and about being enslaved by another person's defrauding me.

There is fraud and there is fraud. Some people don't like being deceived and having their time wasted responding to the unreal -- but there is no way in hell that can remotely compare in wrecked relationships and lives to the shackling of a person's emotions and material wealth to the egocentric, exploitive use of unwanted babies to force another to do one's bidding. As Bush #1 said in a very different context, "This aggression will not stand."

The only thing about which I still think back with regret and anguish is that one of my wives (I won't say which) was so conflicted about our marriage (and her unfinished business), that she decided she wanted to abort our first conceived child. I was not in favor of the abortion, but I didn't try to stand in her way, and I didn't make it a marriage-ending issue, so a completely different sequence of children eventually followed as a result. I wouldn't trade any of the ones who were born, but can't help but sadly wonder what the one would have been like that didn't get born. Perhaps the child wasn't mine, and she was wanting to avoid sacrificing me to justify her choices (indiscretions?). I'll probably never know, but considering how manipulative and undercutting she has been toward me in so many other ways over the years, I doubt that justice toward me was her motivation. I suspect it was more likely an attempt to keep her options open in re her unfinished business, by not having a child to limit her chances to "jump ship." Not long after the abortion, she explored this avenue and it fell through, and we went on with our marriage and had three really great kids (and three grandkids at present count).

But it never ceases to amaze me that people will side with a woman whose rights have been violated by rape and condone her washing her hands of a pregnancy and a child she doesn't want, while a man whose rights have been violated by fraud apparently deserve no equal consideration. At least, the Pro-Lifers (rights from conception) are consistent. They're wrong as hell, but they don't use a double standard about it.

REB

March 21, 2006

John wrote:

This is not about abortion, or a womans right to choose. It is an analogy that doesn't hold up. It *is* about the exercise of control over ones life. Any man is *completely* free, to exercise that virtue, with respect to procreation.

"Any man is *completely* free" to exercise control over his life?

Well, up to a point, I guess. But then the control isn't "complete", is it!

A woman can give the child up for adoption, and the man has no say in it. Is it his child or not? If so, then where is his "exercise of control" over his parenthood? A woman can abort her fetus, and the man has no say in it. Is it his child or not? If so then where is his "exercise of control" over his parenthood?

A woman is "completely free" (under Roe v. Wade) to control her life by aborting an unwanted baby, for at least the first six months of her pregnancy.

A man is "completely free" for...oh...gee, I guess until the woman gets pregnant, and then he's screwed, according to John. John would then have the law require the man to exercise "testicular fortitude" and support a baby he doesn't want, with no similar requirement of "ovarian fortitude" on the part of the woman if she doesn't want the baby.

The woman gets six months or more to second-guess her desire to be a legally responsible mother -- knowing that even later she can bail out and put the kid up for adoption. While the man gets all of that time to stand by with his checkbook and life on hold, pacing the floor, wondering "will she or won't she," what if I start liking the idea of fatherhood and she decides (out of spite or whim) to abort the baby, how much longer before she drops the shoe, what if she later tries to get the kid to help bring charges against me for sexual child abuse in order to get rid of me, what if she's just using me in order to have a kid that I will support while she goes off with a lesbian lover, etc. All because John would like the law to make it safe for manipulative women to ensnare unwilling men, so that they can play Procreation Roulette with the man's emotions and freedom.

If the man should be just as legally responsible as the woman for supporting the baby, then he should have an equal right to terminate the pregnancy. In fact, if the law is going to hold both the man and woman legally responsible for a child that is born of their procreation, then the legal presumption should be on the side of the person wanting to terminate the pregnancy -- whether the man or the woman -- since it involves legal commitment of time and resources they are not willing to provide.

Of course, if you presume that children have rights from conception onward, as the mystics do, then all of this is beside the point. All abortion (except for health) is evil, murdering, rights-destroying. But unless that is John's position, I don't see how he can deny the "complete freedom" of both man and woman to opt out of a pregnancy or parental commitments before a child is born.

REB

[Danneskjold]

Just to clarify to all, my personal belief is that early on the baby is not a human being.

So, you're pro-choice at least for the early term, and undecided about the later stages then?

Pretty much.

[Fran]

I agree that men shouldn't have to pay for a child that was conceived through fraudulent means. Although I think this would be tricky for a court to determine. For a guy to ensure that he doesn't end up in this mess is tough as most contraception, bar the condom, has been developed for the woman to use. As a woman, even if there was contraception available for men, I'd still want to use contraception myself, unless he'd a vasectomy.

Thank you Roger for highlighting the father's side of the situation.

[Paul Mawdsley]

Roger,

A great example of clear thinking from evidence and principle. I have not thought about this issue in as great a depth as I might, and what thinking I have done was awhile ago when my view of human nature and ethics was less developed. For what its worth, I am very much in agreement with your view. Thanks for presenting it.

Paul

Edit: My only question is in regard to the placement of being declared actually human vurses being potentially human. It strikes me intuitively as correct to focus on types of brain activity. I'm just not sure how this is assessed or how it should be assessed without a clearer understanding of what types of activity are distinctively human than we already have. What would be the current criteria?

Edited January 10, 2007 by Paul Mawdsley

[mikelee999]

First, I want to thank Roger Bissell for his 1981 Reason article. It had a huge influence on me, though until today, I didn't realize Roger had written it. I have not read this article in 25 years, but still remember it.

In 1981, I was a faithful Mormon kid, fervently pro-life. Roger's calm arguments were the first ones that brought me up short and made me consider the other side objectively. Roger, thank you! I hope you're as glad that your article had such a big influence as you should be appalled that it was on the likes of me.

Some more or less (mostly less) random thoughts on this subject:

A decade after reading Roger's article, I helped a 16-year-old girl (my little brother's girlfriend) avoid Utah's restrictions on abortion by driving her to Green River, Wyoming in the dead of winter, in a caravan of other pregnant girls and Utah doctors--the doctors making this trip every weekend. No regrets, glad I did it. But I do have doubts (not reasonable ones) about whether I assisted in infanticide. Had I abandoned that girl to her pregnancy, I would have real regrets today, but I am open to the possibility that one day I may come to deeply regret what I did.

There are two kinds of abortion activists I can't stand:

1. Pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape/incest. The only seriously compelling pro-life argument is that fetus=person. Supporting killing a baby because it makes her mommy cry to look at her is as morally unserious as it gets.

2. Pro-choicers who shrug off the question of whether/when a fetus is a person in favor of their right to their bodies. Ma'am, anyone who can say, "I don't know and I don't care if it is murder, I'm not missing a semester of school!" is no gentleman.

There are several reasons why the state might/should restrict or regulate abortion:

* Normal licensing and medical safety concerns

* Public interest (like China, in the other direction--that's an instructive thing to think about)

* Parental rights/inability of minors to consent

* It's the killing of a human being

*It's the killing of something with not the same moral status as a human being but not the status of a tumor. Something at least like a cat or dog.

In the USA, the only issue that really matters is the status of the abortee as a non/person. (Well, there is minor skirmishing around parental consent, but it's not fundamental.) No feminist would survive 5 minutes on a talk show if she granted the personhood of a fetus and still defended her right to kill it. So I'm going to stand pat that it's all about personhood, not bio-property rights.

There are two "self-evident" bright lines drawn by masterful debators of this issue: conception and birth. Typically, pro-lifers take it for granted that conception is the beginning of being a person, and pro-choicers say it's birth. Neither are self-evident lines.

Actually, there are two other bright lines that aren't really all that bright: that a woman's right to her body trumps another person's right to life and that a fetus's right to life trumps a woman's right to her body. Again, both sides assume, neither side bothers to argue.

Most women I know aren't tormented by their decisions to get abortions. And I don't think most women I know are heartless, atypical sluts. Make no mistake, most women who sleep with men in the USA have had abortions. I use the word "abortions" in the plural because it is way more plural than most people want to admit.

The tired trope accepted by both sides of the debate that "abortion should not be a method of birth control" is asinine. Of course, that's what abortion is. An intelligent woman won't make it her first line of defense, but she'll punt when she has to. And, because, like it or not, other birth control methods suck, abortion is resorted to far more frequently by intelligent women than men who women think might be judgmental about this subject would believe. Shocked me too, I know. Ladies, you know I'm saying the truth, please don't have me greased, I mean you no harm.

Nobody who is against abortion who is not certain they are infertile should have sex out of wedlock. And a lot of them shouldn't have sex in wedlock. Unless you are ready, willing and able to responsibly raise a child, you have no business having sex unless you're pro-choice. Relying on other birth control is still Russian Roulette. We have this idea that sex is primarily about fun and romance, but if it can result in a child, it is about the children and eff your fun.

Fetal viability is a sucker punch for the pro-choice side. Technology will inevitably move the ok-to-abort line back to conception or nearby.

Roe v Wade is a sucker punch for pro-life side. An issue that should never have been federal will keep you people backing dips**t candidates for decades to come. If the religious right backs Guiliani this time, I declare them on their feet before the 10 count. They just might, too.

Genetic uniqueness does not a person make. Are twins one person? Are clones? Are blueprints buildings?

I'm a staunch pro-choicer who wants to see Roe v Wade overturned so we can fight this out where it belongs.

Mike Lee

I like UFC

[Judith]

Interesting post, Mike.

There are two kinds of abortion activists I can't stand:

1. Pro-lifers who make exceptions for rape/incest. The only seriously compelling pro-life argument is that fetus=person. Supporting killing a baby because it makes her mommy cry to look at her is as morally unserious as it gets.

Agreed. I've never understood this position. But then, it's not based in logic; it's based on emotional appeal.

2. Pro-choicers who shrug off the question of whether/when a fetus is a person in favor of their right to their bodies. Ma'am, anyone who can say, "I don't know and I don't care if it is murder, I'm not missing a semester of school!" is no gentleman.

It's more than "missing a semester of school" -- it's the taking over of one's body by an alien life form.

I'm not going to argue the point; it was argued ad nauseam above.

There are two "self-evident" bright lines drawn by masterful debators of this issue: conception and birth. Typically, pro-lifers take it for granted that conception is the beginning of being a person, and pro-choicers say it's birth. Neither are self-evident lines.

Actually, if you push them, the pro-lifers will say that fertilization, not conception, is the bright line. They're different things. Fertilization is the merging of the egg and the sperm to form the zygote. Conception is implantation of the zygote on the uterine wall after it has travelled down the fallopian tube to get there. It makes me crazy when people get these two mixed up. Ask any orthodox Roman Catholic; abortion of an ectopic pregnancy (when the genetically unique zygote implants in the fallopian tube, guaranteeing the death of the mother and the fetus) is technically forbidden by church law, even though it's prior to "conception". In practice, I doubt there are many priests who would tell the mother not to get an abortion.

The tired trope accepted by both sides of the debate that "abortion should not be a method of birth control" is asinine. Of course, that's what abortion is. An intelligent woman won't make it her first line of defense, but she'll punt when she has to. And, because, like it or not, other birth control methods suck, abortion is resorted to far more frequently by intelligent women than men who women think might be judgmental about this subject would believe. Shocked me too, I know. Ladies, you know I'm saying the truth, please don't have me greased, I mean you no harm.

!!!!

Are you effing SERIOUS!! Do you truly believe that a surgical procedure, with all the risks that it entails, is a more desirable form of birth control than a daily pill, or an implant, or an IUD, or a tubal ligation?

Think again. Birth control is extremely easy, has few if any side effects once one finds the method that best suits one's lifestyle, and, if practiced diligently, is extremely effective. It's not foolproof, which is why abortion must remain legal, but it's certainly preferable to abortion as one's most desired method of preventing pregnancy! Jesus!

Nobody who is against abortion who is not certain they are infertile should have sex out of wedlock. And a lot of them shouldn't have sex in wedlock. Unless you are ready, willing and able to responsibly raise a child, you have no business having sex unless you're pro-choice. Relying on other birth control is still Russian Roulette. We have this idea that sex is primarily about fun and romance, but if it can result in a child, it is about the children and eff your fun.

For those of us who live in the twentieth/twenty-first centuries, we have the ability to enjoy the fun and romance without being saddled with the misery. Better living through technology! But for men, I agree -- unless you have absolute trust in your partner, better not, because as the laws stand now, she has complete power over your economic life for the next 21+ years if she gets pregnant and refuses to abort....

Judith

Edited March 1, 2007 by Judith

[Fran]

I do have one further point about abortion. Imagine this scenario:

Say, for good reasons, a woman decides that she wants to have an abortion after the legal termination date. Her partner dies or has left her and she doesn't feel able or is willing to bring up a child alone. She would like to have an abortion but is prevented from doing so. She is now carrying a developing foetus that she does not want. Sure she could put it up for adoption once it's born. Then the birth kills her. If she had been able to abort when she wanted she would not have died. This sounds horribly like the worst kind of self-sacrifice to me.

To risk your life for a child that you want is obviously considered worthwhile for many women, to risk your life for a child that you do not want is self-sacrifice. 1 in 10,000 women still die in pregnancy and childbirth.

Thanks to modern technology, babies who are born up to 16 weeks premature can survive outside of the woman's body. If a woman wants to abort within the last 4 months, do we induce birth in a way that will allow the baby to survive (my knowledge on this is limited so it might not be feasible), and hope that someone will want to adopt it? Although babies who are born up to 16 weeks premature can survive, a psychologist friend of mine was telling me that virtually all premature babies have some form of learning disability, even if brain damage doesn't show up on MRI or CAT scans. I guess the more premature the baby is, the higher the risk of brain damage. For clarity, a birth that is up to 5-weeks early is considered pre-term rather than premature and I'm guessing that the risks of brain damage don't apply.

I would like those who are forcefully against termination after a certain date, consider first what it would be like if it was THEIR life that was being put at risk for another person. Objectivists do not expect us to risk our lives for strangers, a stranger who will die if we don't intervene but the risk to ourselves is too great to help them, but do we expect women to risk their lives for a developing human?

[Brant Gaede]

Fran, if her partner hadn't left her the risk would have been the same. I read somewhere that in 19th C. America the mortality risk for the Mother in childbirth was about 15%. Now it's very small. I think in your example you are taking the sacrifice/self-sacrifice issue a step too far. She made her choice and it is hard not to be her and evaluate the moral worth of her choice. Living is risky. But consider if she had made a choice to live in the suburbs and drive and lost her life in a car accident: was that choice therefore self-sacrifice? Only if she knew that that would happen.

--Brant

[Judith]

Fran, if her partner hadn't left her the risk would have been the same. I read somewhere that in 19th C. America the mortality risk for the Mother in childbirth was about 15%. Now it's very small. I think in your example you are taking the sacrifice/self-sacrifice issue a step too far. She made her choice and it is hard not to be her and evaluate the moral worth of her choice. Living is risky. But consider if she had made a choice to live in the suburbs and drive and lost her life in a car accident: was that choice therefore self-sacrifice? Only if she knew that that would happen.

The analogy isn't quite apt, Brant. To make it more apt, she would have changed her mind about living in the suburbs and tried to move into the city, but some interfering person would have prevented her from making that decision.

Judith

[Brant Gaede]

Fran, if her partner hadn't left her the risk would have been the same. I read somewhere that in 19th C. America the mortality risk for the Mother in childbirth was about 15%. Now it's very small. I think in your example you are taking the sacrifice/self-sacrifice issue a step too far. She made her choice and it is hard not to be her and evaluate the moral worth of her choice. Living is risky. But consider if she had made a choice to live in the suburbs and drive and lost her life in a car accident: was that choice therefore self-sacrifice? Only if she knew that that would happen.

The analogy isn't quite apt, Brant. To make it more apt, she would have changed her mind about living in the suburbs and tried to move into the city, but some interfering person would have prevented her from making that decision.

Judith

I didn't read Fran's post quite right. I missed the point about the woman being prevented from having an abortion because Fran described the consequences as "self-sacrifice." Instead, the woman was sacrificed. I believe in a woman's right to get an abortion and only argue about the issue out of that context. Roger's views most echo my own.

--Brant

[mikelee999]

It's more than "missing a semester of school" -- it's the taking over of one's body by an alien life form.

I'm not going to argue the point; it was argued ad nauseam above.

Ok, I'll argue it then. I wuv arguing!

Aside from the Virgin Mary, rape victims and some very dumb women, few women who get pregnant have no clue how it happened. It's a shock that comes as no surprise.

In the overwhelming majority of cases, women who have abortions were taking a calculated, forseeable risk when they had sex. It's not like they were randomly kidnapped by aliens and implanted with an alien life form.

And, if you decide not to raise the baby, it really is, more or less, a "semester of school" inconvenience to carry a pregnancy to term. And, you do bear at least a certain percentage of responsibility for the current situation. It's one thing to say, no, I won't give up a kidney for a stranger who needs it; it's another thing if the stranger needs the kidney because you were horny.

Are you effing SERIOUS!! Do you truly believe that a surgical procedure, with all the risks that it entails, is a more desirable form of birth control than a daily pill, or an implant, or an IUD, or a tubal ligation?

My apologies for not being clear. No, I don't think relying on abortion is preferable to remembering to take your pill or get your patch changed. But I do believe that all other methods of birth control other than abortion are uncertain, and abortion is the sure way to git 'er done.

I know plenty of women who say they were taking the pill, not taking tetracycline, and they got pregnant anyhow. Evidently, the fine print effectiveness statistics are FDA BS or don't apply to suburbia or, more likely, most of these women are damn liars.

Parenthetical paragraph: I don't want to turn this into a men's rights thread. What we're discussing here is more fundamental than cui $$$$$.

Contraceptive failures, other than abortion, are very common. My point is that perfectly rational, careful people end up having abortions despite their rationality and carefulality, in numbers higher than most people think. A whole lot of women in the US who aren't dumb sluts have had more than one abortion. This does not gibe with drug company advertisements, I know.

Every sexually active woman who is at all responsible who doesn't yet want to be a mom should be ready able and willing to get suctioned after every sexual encounter.

Think again. Birth control is extremely easy, has few if any side effects once one finds the method that best suits one's lifestyle, and, if practiced diligently, is extremely effective. It's not foolproof, which is why abortion must remain legal, but it's certainly preferable to abortion as one's most desired method of preventing pregnancy! Jesus!

Birth control, like Christianity, if practiced sedulously, would change the world. I'm saying that given actual human nature, forgetfulness, self-deception, spouse-deception, malice, biological imperatives, jealousy, stupidity, quality control issues and pharmacy hours, all other forms of birth control except abortion work less often than most people think. If I'm wrong, why are there so many abortions?

For those of us who live in the twentieth/twenty-first centuries, we have the ability to enjoy the fun and romance without being saddled with the misery.

I don't want to take offense where none was intended, but reading back now over what I wrote before, and what you wrote in response, I'm having a hard time understanding how you thought I was suggesting that women should go off the pill and rely on abortion instead.

And the whole Jesus! and Are you Effing serious? crap is starting to get right up my nose. I don't know you, but you seem to think, like many women, that you can snort and paw, declare critical parts of the debate off limits, and still retain the illusion of intellectual seriousness because you have a vagina and I don't. If that's what you think with, then bring it on!

If you think you'll never need an abortion because you're in a Brave New World of technology, then I hope you hit menopause before your illusions do.

Mike Lee

Girl Fight Tonight