About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 8:11amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit


So the real issues is when does a human being come into existence. Is it at conception? Is it when the fetus acquires some capacity to think—based on "man is a thinking animal"? Or is it when someone is born—we celebrate birthdays then, thus it's the beginning of someone’s human life?


That about sums it - and while a fetus may have the capacity, it is not actualized until the birthing, thus in fact  "...when someone is born..." is the true beginning of being human...

[just as with any egg - life begins when it hatches..]

(Edited by robert malcom on 2/26, 8:13am)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 1

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 3:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
 I suppose it is unrealistic to expect that most parties to this debate will get down to the business of trying to resolve it in fair and accurate terms. They are too committed either way.
I think the difficult part here would be having a rational discussion about the beginning of life with an anti-abortionist.  Catholics, who are the most vehement anti-abortionists I've met, teach that life begins at conception.  Obviously, if science shows otherwise they aren't going to admit being wrong very quickly (sarcasm - the Catholic church is not not known for admitting wrongs). 

So the real issues is when does a human being come into existence. Is it at conception? Is it when the fetus acquires some capacity to think—based on "man is a thinking animal"? Or is it when someone is born—we celebrate birthdays then, thus it's the beginning of someone’s human life?
While I completely agree that this is the question we need to be asking, as long as the abortion opponents have this underlying belief on the beginning of life, they will not listen to rational arguments.


Post 2

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
      I've come to see such questions as "What is a 'human being'?" or "When does it 'come into existence'?" as improperly formulated in terms of metaphysics like the old questions about definitions of a stool or the nature of the identity of Theseus' ship.

      Re-formulated epistemologically, the question is...for each and every one of us..."What is *my* criteria for labelling this entity a 'human being'?"

      I've concluded that a consciousness (the noun; not the 'state') is a necessary, if not sufficient, requirement for any sensible meaning.

LLAP
J:D


Post 3

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 7:19pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Tibor is correct in his distillation of the issue at hand.  I personally have a hard time defining the exact moment of when an individual's right to life begins.  I sense a certain degree of subjectivity and grey area with any other point than conception.  Yet, I can't even come close to calling abortion murder.  A related question is whether the murder of a pregnant woman is two murders or one. 

Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 17, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 7:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Thanks, Tibor, another wonderful essay.

 

You hit the nail squarely on the head by identifying the non-rational hypocritical positions held by both the pro-life and pro-choice advocates. The most vociferous among these groups tend to take the most extreme possible stance bordering on a choice of a total “yes” or “no”. And as you pointed out, they do so, not for any logical reason backed up with empirical evidence, but based on their respective agendas.

 

In my opinion, the people that fanatically dedicate their lives to advancing either of these positions are operating from one side of the same coin.

 

In the case of the extreme pro-lifers, the underlying agenda is about having another method for controlling the behavior of women (in this case, the sexual behavior); and as a consequence, a ban on abortion helps facilitate the subordination of women to a patriarchal value system. Call me crazy, but there’s something supremely disingenuous about a man fighting for a child’s “right to life” - by holding up a large jar of formaldehyde with a fake fetus inside. Peculiarly, but in many ways understandably, some of the most dedicated pro-life advocates are women.

 

In the case of the extreme pro-choicer, the agenda is twofold; firstly, it is used as a wedge issue to rouse women into an even greater adversarial relationship with men. In this respect, it is a method of expanding the political influence of organizations that can only thrive by maintaining the divisive identity politics that further balkanize our culture. And secondly, as a means to undermine the concept of morality and individual responsibility (concepts which are widely viewed as the sole province of religious moral codes); hence a blow against the agenda of the religious is considered a victory by those of the subjectivist/relativist schools of thought.

 

When it’s all said and done, behind all those crocodile tears for the death of the “unborn”, and behind all the shrill screeching about a woman’s “right” to her own body; behind it all, the reality is just Attila and the Witch Doctor having another go at each other.  The only thing that makes this particular turf war unique, is the fact that in this case, Attila is represented by the religious-right - while the Witch Doctor is represented by ultra-liberal left.

 

However, Tibor, here is where you might differ with me; for it’s in my belief that the majority of the people taking positions in the pro-life/pro-choice divide are not that far from your position on the issue.  One of the most fascinating polls that I recently saw asked the traditional 2 'either-or' questions on the issue,  but this time a third choice was added. Along with the usual 2 choices, there was a third choice stated along the lines of, “Without exception, the right to an abortion shall be legal at any point within the 1st trimester, and with the sole exception of a mother’s life being in danger: no abortion may be done after fetal development reaches a stage where the fetus has independent viability outside of the womb”. My wording is way off, but it was something along these lines, and I think you get the general idea.

 

The results were a large majority in favor of the third choice. This indicates to me that, unlike the loud squeaky wheels of fundamentalists literalists and the man hating Femi-Nazis, that your typical “Easter and Christmas” Christian and the modern urban professional woman (whom more often than not, are one in the same) – do not hold extreme agenda driven positions on the issue; and given a more rational third choice, they opt for the one that appeals to their common sense.  In other words, when the issue is taken out of the hands of the wackos, your average American doesn’t buy into the idea that 2 seconds after a sperm hits the egg, viola, you have a genuine “baby”! But also, he won’t buy into the monstrously inverted logic, that if a 9-month pregnant woman gave birth to healthy child at 2pm, it should have been perfectly legal for her to have had this “fetus” aborted just an hour earlier!

 

Having read a lot of your essays and articles in the past, Tibor, I think am somewhat familiar with your position on the issue. Just correct me if I am wrong, but if I remember correctly, your preference is for a rational standard being implemented with a cut off date between the 22nd and 26th week of fetal development; this time period being chosen due to a body of science which indicates a significantly developed cerebral cortex operating the brain on a level of higher functioning. And perhaps your idea is to have a standard based on this science to be codified into law, recognizing this as the line upon which a developing fetus is recognized as a rights’ protected - human being. Interestingly, this is not far off the mark of the desire of the average American.  

 

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 2/27, 12:31pm)


Post 5

Monday, February 26, 2007 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
That is my basic stance, yes, as laid out in my book, The Passion for Liberty (2003).

Post 6

Tuesday, February 27, 2007 - 5:41pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Concerning the stubborn refusal of many religious people to think about the issue of what distinguishes "human life" from "pre-human life", I had an interesting experience. I exchanged a series of discussions about ideas with a fellow who published several articles on Lewrockwell.com about the philosophy of ethics. We exchanged four or five fairly lengthy commentaries, always without acrimony. Although he was religious, I liked the guy because he was trying to derive ethical principles based on inferences about life and people, instead of just quoting the Bible. 

When he published his ideas about abortion, I sent him a polite note drawing his attention to the fact that "man is a thinking, choosing being" and a fetus developes the earliest physical capability for thinking--the cerberal cortex--at around 26 weeks. Therefore, life before this crucial stage of physical development could be viewed as pre-human; and life at this stage as the beginning of "human life".

I never received a response.

Abortion is fraught with emotion for the religious. I think this has to do with the fundamental religious view of human life. On one hand, many Christians believe that man is nominally an individual moral agent with "free will". However, in a more important way, Christians believe that man is not individual, but rather an insignificant part of the vast mysterious realm that includes God and all his work. While Christians often believe man has free will, they make the concept comparatively unimportant by emphasizing what they believe is the ultimate human choice: to believe or not believe in the Divine mystery of God. In summary, they sabotage the significance of free will by elevating faith over reason, at least concerning ultimate issues.

But to believe in this Mystery requires closing off various avenues of inquiry that could challenge the cosmic importance of God to human life, which I assume is essential to religious thinking. Thoughtful inquiry into the abortion issue seems to collide with the "mystery of life" that the religious value.


Post 7

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 2:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So the real issues is when does a human being come into existence.


Maybe for some people, that's the issue, but as I see it, choosing to make that question the "real issue" sidesteps the REAL issue:

Who owns the woman's body? Does she own it, and thus have the right to choose whether to allow it to be used to support another life (and, conversely, the right to choose to evict an unwanted trespasser), or does she lose self-ownership as soon as a fetus enters the picture, and thus no longer has even the right to choose whether her body will be used to support another life?

In other words, the REAL question isn't whether the fetus is a human being. The REAL question is whether pregnancy is cause to abrogate libertarian principles in favor of violating the woman's self-ownership.

I'm certain we can all agree that if you were confronted with an individual trespassing on your personal property, you would have the right to evict that individual, regardless of whether that eviction would happen at the cost of his or her life. So why does the same right not apply when the trespassing individual is a fetus, and the personal property is a woman's body?

Post 8

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 3:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I am definitely a third-choicer in this debate.

I wanted to make two brief comments.

(1) At what point does it become a woman's responsibility to own up to the fact that she is pregnant, has had plenty of time to abort the fetus, and now, since she has chosen through inaction to wait until she has a kicking baby inside her, she will just have to wait a little bit longer until the pregnancy will self-terminate, through birth, rather than by brain-vacuum? 20 some weeks seems more than enough to me.

(2) How many people are aware that Jewish tradition holds that life begins when the crown of the head leaves the birth canal, and that the rationale for partial-birth abortion is that it does not contradict Jewish religious practice, whereas if the child were "partially delivered" head first, and then killed, it would be against Jewish law? One never hears about this from those who want to keep religion out of the debate, and support partial-birth-abortion.

Ted Keer

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 7:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It isn't who owns the woman's body--indeed, the idea that someone owns his or her--or anyone else's--body is peculiar--it suggests a mind-body dualism. So, yes, the woman is in charge of herself, she is the one who has the right to her life. Yet, once she makes a commitment to rear a child, certain options are foreclosed for her. Just as when one gets married, chooses, freely, to unite with another in matrimony, this involves a commitment (albeit one freely assumed). So it does matter most whether the woman has invited a child into her womb or only a potential child. If the former, she isn't at liberty to kill it, any more than when one invites someone to one's home one is at liberty to kill that person. I remain unconvinced that anything other than when a human being begins to exist can solve this problem. (The case of rape may pose some additional problems, although even there, killing a human being would not be justified, anymore than if one were to find a child deposited into one's home one would be at liberty to kill it.)

Post 10

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 7:58pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rape is absolutely irrelevant to the question of the legality of abortion at any stage, and when put forth as an exception by mealy-mouthed religionists, it makes the hypocrisy of their stand quite clear.

Even if a woman wakes up from a coma at six months to find herself pregnant, the now existent child is an innocent third party. Abort the rapist.

Ted



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 11

Wednesday, February 28, 2007 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
And no, Mr. Hartwell, one could not evict a person by forcible means up to and including lethal force - unless he resisted with force. Contested evictions take some time, and again, birth will solve that problem. Fetuses are not initiating force.

Abortion is not simply a form of terminating a pregnancy, since all pregnancies are self-terminating. In clear languae, it is a way of killing a being that will become an unwanted child, hopefully before it is a child.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 2/28, 9:45pm)


Post 12

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What if 'nature' decides to abort the fetus - at any stage along the way - not considered murder.... yet if the woman does, it is?  is chance then favored over deliberation?

and, in regards to this, who is to determine whether nature or the woman decided?


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Robert,

Nature could abort you at any moment, too—so what? Yes, if “nature” does it, it isn’t murder, but if I do it, it is. A jury is to determine if I murdered you or if you died “naturally.”


Post 14

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 8:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If someone dies because of an act of self defense, I consider that a death by natural causes. I don't consider it "violence" either, anymore than chopping down a tree to build a house is violent.

Post 15

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 8:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
> What if 'nature' decides to abort the fetus - at any stage along the way - not considered murder...

Of course not! All miscarriage cases are due to some intrinsic biological problems either in fetus or the woman, though we don't always know exactly what it is. It is a mechanism of self-preserving. Murder?! Gosh, what a screwed notion!


Post 16

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 9:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hong,

I don’t think Robert meant to suggest it would be murder. I think what he’s getting at is that we can’t protect the nearly born because there would be ambiguity as to whether it aborted naturally or by actions of the mother. As in: What are we to do—haul every woman who has a late-term miscarriage into court and see if we can prove she caused it? A fair enough concern, I suppose…yet not cause for alarm. Thousands die of SIDs, yet we don’t see all the parents harassed by prosecutors trying to prove the parents caused it. Of course, if there is evidence sufficient for a case that the parents actually killed a baby they claim died naturally of SIDs, then there should be a trial. Same would go for a “late-term miscarriage” where sufficient evidence exists that it was actually an abortion.


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 11:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, I just realize that. Though natural abortion aka miscarriage is not chance either. It is inevitability.

It is very strange that I never felt that I have much to say in most abortion discussions even though I know several abortion cases and their circumstances intimately. I never like the argument that "woman has a right to her own body" and that "she should be able to do what she likes with her own body". Maybe I am a "pro-lifer"? I also don't care much about the precise moment when life should be considered to come into being. A baby is born and alive. Good. Fine. Before that moment, it is all somewhat arbitrary.

I dislike the word "pro-choice" for abortion right advocates. Because in all the cases that I know, the people (mostly couples, and even the whole family) who made the decision of abortion, really had no other choice. 

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 3/01, 11:26am)


Post 18

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 2:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
     I wish I had the news ref items, but, some bills being brought up in some states (nm some laws we have on the books as of late) make me think that a female acting in some anti-PC way (imbibing alchohol, smoking, unapproved eating-style, not looking both ways 'fore crossing the street, whatever), if, at some time later, shows a 'miscarriage' record at a hospital (celebrities: take note!) WILL, upon public knowledge of the miscarriage, be held liable for 'fetus endangerment' or 'reckless care-taking.' --- Mark my words.

     We're already on a black-ice 'slippery slope' in our laws re this stuff.

LLAP
J:D 


Post 19

Thursday, March 1, 2007 - 2:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes - California is such a state...
I stand corrected - at least by this wikipedia account -----

  • No U.S. state has enacted a law which criminalizes specific behavior during pregnancy, but, nonetheless, it has been estimated that at least 200 American women have been criminally prosecuted or arrested under existing child abuse statutes for allegedly bringing about harm in-utero through their conduct during pregnancy. [7] Reasons for pressing charges included use of illicit drugs, consumption of alcohol, and failure to comply with a doctor's order of bedrest or caesarean section. [7] Drug addicts have been accused of "supplying drugs to a minor" through unintentional chemical subjection via the umbilical cord. [7] Others have been charged with assault with a deadly weapon with the "deadly weapon" in question being an illegal drug.[7] Minnesota, Wisconsin and South Dakota allow women who continue to use substances while pregnant to be civilly committed. [7] Some states require that medical providers report any infant who is born with a physical dependency, or who tests positive for residual traces of alcohol or drugs, to child welfare authorities.

  • (Edited by robert malcom on 3/01, 2:49pm)


    Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Page 2Forward one pageLast Page


    User ID Password or create a free account.