The Ethics of Abortion

(This continues a discussion on abortion that started in the "Religion is a Scam" thread on the General Forum.)

Steve Alan Redder,

What I think Teresa was saying is that simply by choosing to drive a car, you do not choose the unforeseen consequences of an accident. Granted, if you were reckless and the accident were you're fault, then you can be held accountable for it and required to compensate the other driver. But not every accident that you might have is your fault, yet you know that by consenting to drive, you expose yourself to the possibility of an accident (one that is not the result of your own carelessness).

For example, suppose that as you are driving, a child suddenly darts out into the path of your car and gets hit by you and killed. Did you choose to kill the child, because you chose to drive your car? You could have avoided hitting her, if you had abstained from driving entirely, but that doesn't mean that by choosing to drive, you are morally responsible for the child's death.

By the same token, responsible contraception is not 100% infallible. So, analogously, by choosing to have safe sex, you do not thereby choose the consequences of becoming pregnant, should that happen. Since you are not morally responsible for the pregnancy, you are entitled to terminate it. Teresa can correct me if I'm wrong, but that, I believe, is her argument.

In any case, I would say that a zygote is not a rights-bearing human being. It does not, at conception, even have a mind or consciousness, which at the very least is a precondition for the right to life.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 3/02, 1:35pm)

Post 1

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 4:32pm

Steve Redder is confused. By "potential," Rand means that a tree isn't yet a house, nor is a lake yet a pitcher of lemonade. Similarly, a zygote isn't yet a human being. A is A.

I have no interest in mysticism or the supernatural, so if S. Redder has a rational argument to support his conclusion that a fertilized ovum is a "human being," I'm all ears.

Post 2

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 5:43pm

Teresa,

I have a question to make myself feel comfortable. If Steve R. is posting to Dissent, will you refrain from rejecting any of his posts here?

For what it's worth, I would be made comfortable if you say you intend to let him speak his mind here. It's important for me to be able to see what is inside of another's mind -- in order to evaluate how much time/energy it may be fruitful to invest toward the business of relating to them.

Ed

p.s. If I didn't ask this, then I would be concerned to respond at all -- because I couldn't judge his mindset if it was filtered through an editor who took the initiative to pick and choose from his thoughts before allowing any of them through. I also understand that what I'm asking you to do may be immoral (if he submitted, for instance, the entire Old Testament, as a single post).

:-)

Note: Even if you don't agree to let him speak unfiltered, I'd be fine with that (because I would "know").

Post 3

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 6:52pm

Sorry, Ed. Mr. Redder will only be allowed to "witness" in the Dissent forum. Other posts will be considered, of course, for the General Forum depending on content.

Dean was kind enough to give him free access without earning it. When he was asked to move the discussion, Mr. Redder simply refused. If he didn't know how, anyone here could have helped him. He never asked, and I can only assume that's because he just didn't care.

I shouldn't have entertained him to the minor extent I did.
I should be able to see a wall for what it is by now.

No, I won't filter his posts if they qualify for Dissent, which I suspect will be all of them.

(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/02, 6:54pm)

Post 4

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 7:11pm

Tres,

Sorry, Ed. Mr. Redder will only be allowed to "witness" in the Dissent forum. Other posts will be considered, of course, for the General Forum depending on content.

That's what I meant -- that he posts his posts in the Dissent forum ... unfiltered. I realize it wouldn't be prudent to ask for dispensation for him from usual forums. I didn't even have that in mind. All I was asking is if posts submitted even to the Dissent forum will be filtered. I guess what I would like to know is if there is an RoR policy -- or plan -- of "completely free (allowed) speech" inside the Dissent forum.

Are posts to the Dissent forum ever rejected?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/02, 7:15pm)

Post 5

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 8:02pm

Director of Outreach lost his chance. :P Ed, I'm not sure how you are going to try to make an argument based on logic/evidence convincing to a person who experiences visions from "God".

No matter what you say about when a human even develops a nervous system, or when a human life begins... to a Christian a person is given his "soul" from "God" at conception, and "God" chose for this to be. So your arguments based on when human life begins are not satisfying to them.

And.. I think the better argument is that a person should never be bound to provide the needs of another unless he consensually takes custody.

Consent: "Consent refers to the provision of approval or assent, particularly and especially after thoughtful consideration."

Steve argued that intercourse was the choice, the consent, the acceptance of the duty if conception were to happen.

I'd disagree, and assert that it is her body, that she has full control over whether she feeds and shelters a developing human.

How about this example: A cruel scientist clones himself, tranquilizes women, and impregnates random women with his clones. Or a simpler example: A man forces his sperm into a woman. In both of these cases, the woman now is feeding and sheltering a developing human, in which cases it may very well be against her will.

I would assert that the woman has the right to do what ever she wants with her own body, to discontinue feeding the scientist's clone, to discontinue feeding the rapist's child.

Also, she has the right to discontinue feeding a developing a developing human: when one of the eggs she created accepted a sperm and became fertilized against her will, and began growing and feeding off of her against her will, even if the intercourse was consensual.

=====

Steve said something like that a man should have 50% "ownership" of a child. I'd disagree, even at conception, a woman has put way more effort into creating the child than the man. All the way through pregnancy, the woman puts way more effort into creating the child than the man. Now if the woman were accepting the man's financial support and he was supplying her with all of her needs through the pregnancy, I'd say he has more of a claim of the child.

=====

Also, if the man decides that he does not want to spend his resources on the child, informs the woman of this, and the woman goes through with the pregnancy anyways, I'd say that the man has no legal responsibility to provide for the needs of the child.

On the other hand, if he first is OK with having the child, and then at some later point during the pregnancy (when it is too late for abortion), or after birth, then decides that he wants to discontinue supporting the child... Then he should be bound to providing the needs of the child for a reasonable amount of time until its possible that another provider can volunteer to become a caregiver.

Similar for the woman caregiver as the man, if at some point she decides she no longer wants to be a caregiver, she must continue proving the needs of the child for a reasonable amount of time until its possible that another provider can volunteer to become a caregiver.

So yea, I'm challenging that parents/guardians (caregivers) should be legally bound to provide for the needs of the needy until the needy becomes independent, until another volunteers, or until the needy dies. Instead I suggest that the caregivers are only bound for a short period of time after they publicly/legally declare they wish to discontinue being a caregiver. Say maybe 6 months to 1 year as a suggested time frame after the declaration.

Post 6

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 8:41pm

Surely, the issue of abortion is one of individual rights. Once a child (person) is brought into this world as an individual capable of breathing and interacting with the environment it is endowed with all the rights granted to all humans. By allowing the fetus to grow to term the mother has tacitly accepted the responsibility of nurturing the child to adulthood at which time it is responsible for its own well-being.

I am totally against late term abortions except in very unusual cases. In these days of medical science abnormalities in a fetus can be detected early on so that grossly disfigured or compromised fetus's can be aborted on compassionate grounds. When the fetus is normal there can be no moral reason for a late-term abortion as the mother has had many months to consider her predicament.

When the fetus in still inside the mother there can't be any argument based on individual rights because there is only one individual � the mother. In my opinion, if the baby is capable of living outside the mother then it should be allowed to struggle to survive and given all the medical care necessary. If there is no possibility of it surviving, as judged by historical cases, then and only then, should abortion be allowed. Of course, as medical technology increases the term would be moved shorter.

Sam

Post 7

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 8:48pm

Dean,

You wrote to Ed, "I'm not sure how you are going to try to make an argument based on logic/evidence convincing to a person who experiences visions from 'God'."

Yes, true.

But, why should anyone bother trying to convince a person who won't let go of the idea that divine revelations bring truth and says that's what they've been receiving. These people cling to faith at a level indistinguishable from delusions and they are denying their responsibility for holding reason as the standard, and they make themselves into hypocrites by the act of 'reasoning' against reason.

The other Steve

p.s., Please, in any of these threads refer to him as Steve Redder and me as Steve Wolfer. Thanks.

Post 8

Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - 10:59pm

Dean,

Sometimes there is a lot to gain from a conversation that you fear won't work out in the long run. Sometimes seeds get planted. Sometimes folks challenge you and that challenge strengthens you. Sometimes you lay down some serious shit, some real "philosophicalizationizing", and you earn pride. And sometimes, third-party viewers get something out of it -- either education, inspiration, or just plain entertainment.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/02, 11:01pm)

Post 9

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 10:27am

@ #6 - that is the deal, WHEN THE BODY OF THE MOTHER DECIDES THE FETUS IS READY TO BECOME THE BORN... not medical science, which while yes, course could remove the fetus and under artificial care keep it developing into the born proper - for that is ARTIFICIALLY extending the birthing, not a 'nature' birthing...

Post 10

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 3:09pm

Are posts to the Dissent forum ever rejected?

Honestly, I don't know if that has ever happened, Ed. I don't think I've ever rejected one, though.

Post 11

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 4:40pm

Thanks, Tres, it gives me some perspective.

Ed

Post 12

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 5:04pm

My limited experience here (which does NOT include being an editor) has been that posts are never rejected in Dissent, but that at a certain point, the person may be rejected. I think we have 'moderated' or even kicked out a few people, not because of their views, but because of the viciousness of personal attacks on others or blatant violations of rules. I've never seen anything that looked like 'censorship' or slanting of presentation through selective rejection - either overtly or mistakenly. And I haven't seen the use of this or that rule to force someone to change their views. I don't think we, as a group, have ever been tempted to go that direction since we are pretty good as a group at using rational peer pressure to control abusive posting practices and having a dissent area allows those who are enemies of Objectivism to proselytize or attack our ideas where we aren't sanctioning them or giving public hearings and no one has to reply that doesn't want to. Being private property makes it all work of course.

Post 13

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 5:38pm

I've never rejected dissent posts. I've definitely not accepted many posts, independent of where they were being posted, simply because I thought the person's post was too full of straw man arguments or too full of poorly defined words/switch meanings. Someone would eventually hit accept after being in the queue for about a day.

Recently some new member (he only tried to post twice on one day, haven't seen him since)... tried to post some criticisms of Objectivism and this website. I remember he said we were hypocrites because we were "against war, but we have a "war room"". His posts were so poorly/carelessly written, and he had such a poor understanding of Objectivism that I rejected them. That's the only time I remember hitting reject.

Post 14

Thursday, March 3, 2011 - 7:42pm

Good points, Steve.

Dean (and Teresa),

I want to say thank you to you both for whatever work you have done moderating. Just listening to Dean describe a recent case made me realize the kind of effort you put into something like that and it was enough for me to really appreciate what it is that you do.

I'm not kidding, thanks to you both.

Ed

Post 15

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 7:03pm

WHEN THE BODY OF THE MOTHER DECIDES THE FETUS IS READY TO BECOME THE BORN...

This isn't accurate, Robert. A full term (sometimes not so full term) fetus "decides" by releasing a hormone that triggers uterine contractions and labor, not the other way around.

Post 16

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 7:57pm

I'm kind of an agnostic on the issue of abortion -- I have heard too many smart, well-reasoned arguments on where exactly during a pregnancy that a fetus becomes a human being to feel there is an objective, single answer. This seems to me to be one of those topics that is inextricably subjective and based on one's values, rather than something where a single, objectively true answer is discernable, something concrete like the law of gravity.

I used to consider myself to be pro-life, but after debating this with a lot of people now my gut feeling is that somewhere around the end of the first trimester is when I personally would regard a fetus of which I was the father to be a human being. But, I respect other opinions on this matter.
(Edited by Jim Henshaw on 3/04, 7:59pm)

Post 17

Friday, March 4, 2011 - 8:09pm

If you took out all the religion and that supernatural bunkum, and dealt with just the science, especially that of embryology, you would sing a different tune...

Post 18

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 11:28am

Why is objectivism in support of abortion? I mean, doesn't objectivism hold that man should not sacrifice himself to others nor others to himself? Is abortion not sacrificing the life and potential of an unborn human being in favor of the convenience of the parent and thus inconsistent with objectivism's overarching philosophy?

Post 19

Sunday, August 28, 2011 - 12:08pm