The Ethics of Abortion

More from "Why It Matters that Life Begins at Birth Not Conception" by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, Ph.D.:

If passed and enforced, [laws banning abortion] would affect the meaning of the criminal law, mandating harsh legal penalties for harm done to zygotes, embryos, and fetuses. Intentionally harming a zygote would be a crime of the same magnitude as harming a born infant, and intentionally killing a zygote would be murder. Colorado Statute 18-3-102 states, "A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if...[a]fter deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person...Murder in the first degree is a class 1 felony." Thus, if a zygote is legally a person from the moment of fertilization, then any intentional act of preventing it from implanting (such as by taking the "morning after" pill) or aborting an embryo or fetus would be first-degree murder.

By Colorado law, the punishment for that crime would be life in prison or death. Statute 18-1.4-102 states, "Upon conviction of guilt of a defendant of a class 1 felony, the trial court shall conduct a separate sentencing hearing to determine whether the defendant should be sentenced to death or life imprisonment..." While few supporters of Amendment 62 would likely endorse such draconian punishments, its intended meaning as articulated by its sponsors leaves no room for doubt: any woman who deliberately harms a zygote or who terminates her pregnancy would be guilty of murder under Colorado law. In fact, at least one Colorado religious leader has explicitly called for the death penalty for abortion (among other alleged offenses).[67] While American Right to Life does not directly advocate the death penalty for abortion, it explicitly calls abortion murder and "advocates the death penalty for everyone convicted of a capital crime."[68]

In addition, coroners, police officers, and prosecutors might be obliged, pressured, or inspired to investigate or prosecute any miscarriage deemed suspicious. A woman suspected of inducing a miscarriage (or attempting to do so) could be subject to criminal prosecution, as could others suspected of helping her in the act. Similarly, any actions of a pregnant woman that might endanger the welfare of her embryo or fetus could be considered child abuse, which doctors might be required to report. As Indra Lusero and Lynn Paltrow said of Colorado's Amendment 48, "If the amendment passes, Colorado's juvenile courts will have jurisdiction whenever doctors or family members disagree with a pregnant woman's medical decisions."[69]....

If a newly fertilized zygote is a person with full legal rights, then any action that prevents a zygote from implanting in the uterus must be considered murder. Thus, if fully implemented, laws banning abortion would ban any form of birth control that could prevent implantation of a zygote, most notably, the birth control pill--the most popular type of birth control--as well as intrauterine devices (IUDs) and "morning after" drugs. A ban on the birth control pill would affect most sexually-active couples. A report from the Centers for Disease Control shows widespread use of birth control, noting that, as of 2008, 99 percent "of all women who had ever had intercourse had ever used at least one contraceptive method," and 82 percent "had ever used the oral contraceptive pill." The report continues: "The leading current method of contraception in the United States in 2006-2008 was the oral contraceptive pill. It was currently being used by 10.7 million women aged 15-44 years."[94]....

ProLife.com, which advocates "ending abortion," hosts an article by J. T. Flynn which begins, "Physicians across America--and around the world--are now confirming that the Pill, IUDs, Depo-Provera and Norplant cause early abortions."[105] Dr. Walter Larimore considered the "postfertilization effect" of the birth control pill, and he decided on religious grounds to stop prescribing it:

"Finally, after many months of debate and prayer, I decided in 1998 to no longer prescribe the Pill. As a family physician, my career has been committed to family care from conception to death. Since the evidence indicated to me that the Pill could have a postfertilization effect, I felt I could no longer, in good conscience, prescribe it..."[106] To put the possible "postfertilization effect" of birth control methods in perspective, consider that natural or spontaneous abortion is a routine occurrence. Many zygotes fail to implant, and they are flushed out of a woman's body. Due to the difficulty of detecting when a woman's body rejects a zygote, estimates of prevalence range widely. One researcher summarizes, "In humans, it has been estimated that between 30% and 70% of conceptuses are lost before or at the time of implantation, without women being aware that they were pregnant."[107] Even after a woman becomes pregnant with the implantation of the embryo, the risks of losing the embryo by natural causes still hover around 10 to 25 percent.[108]

Moreover, as William Saletan observes for Slate, activities that may inhibit implantation include breast feeding, drinking coffee, and exercising.[109] Hence, nature is by far the greatest cause of death for zygotes and embryos. Yet notice that such natural deaths are not lamented, nor regarded as a public health crisis--not even by those who think of the embryos as persons. In essence, "personhood" measures would ban forms of birth control that mimic the body's natural processes. If a newly fertilized zygote is a person, then birth control that blocks implantation even sometimes must be outlawed, with its use and distribution criminally penalized. The same would apply to any medication that might harm a zygote, regardless of the costs in pain and suffering to women. "Personhood" laws would thus profoundly impact the reproductive lives of women even before implantation, the common marker of the beginning of pregnancy.

Post 61

Friday, November 25, 2011 - 5:04pm

Teresa Summerlee Isanhart said:

So what? Are trying to make the argument that an "independent" yet completely "dependent" entity attached to a woman's body isn't her property? Are cancer cells the same organism as mom? Again, I don't see the magic distinction between a clump of cancer cells that happen through one mechanism, and fertilization which happens through another, or why a woman's will isn't enough to make a claim on her own life in either case.

I've already made the correction that the word "individual" would have been better suited to differentiate the zygote from its mother than "independent."

A cancer cell is a malfunctioning part of an organism. A cancer cell is not an organism. A zygote is not a malfunction, and it is an organism. Those are some significant distinctions.

Again, arguments about mom's will and whether she has a right to kill the fetus are secondary to arguments about whether the fetus is an individual organism or a piece of the mom. The first step to dehumanizing a human zygote is to claim that it doesn't possess life - that it shares the same status as a toenail or a cancer cell. If a zygote actually were the equivalent of a cancer cell, then any conversation about mom's will and rights wouldn't be necessary at all, would it? I certainly don't have a problem with mom clipping her toenails or having cancer removed. I can't think of anyone who would. I don't know why anyone would formulate so many arguments about mom's rights to evict an unwanted tenant if they really believed that said tenant were nothing more than a malfunctioning uterus cell.

Post 62

Friday, November 25, 2011 - 5:56pm

A zygote is not a person it is a clump of cells.
A zygote has no sense of "I" identity so is not even a conscious being and as such has no rights.
The woman in question however does have rights and as an individual has and SHOULD have complete control over what happens within her own body.
If a woman is pregnant and does not want to have a child for WHATEVER reason that is her business regardless of what mystics of the mind and mystics of muscle may delude you into thinking.

Pro life movements could not be more mis named...their creed and their cry is the worship of death. Persecution of doctors, persecution and foisting un earned guilt on women who are already emotionally on edge with what knowing that an unwanted child would not grow up in an environment conducive to its well being.

And now as bill pointed out these carcass carving statists leeches are passing or attempting to pass laws that would brand a woman as a murderer for ending a pregnancy?

Wake up P H M ... YOu point the finger at one group demanding that something be done because you object..snick! Another freedom gone..
Just don't act surpised when "society" points the finger your way and its your head that ends up on the chopping block.

Post 63

Friday, November 25, 2011 - 5:58pm

I honestly think you're equivocating, P

A cancer cell is a malfunctioning part of an organism. A cancer cell is not an organism. A zygote is not a malfunction, and it is an organism. Those are some significant distinctions.

As if pregnancy never causes harm?

Again, arguments about mom's will and whether she has a right to kill the fetus are secondary to arguments about whether the fetus is an individual organism or a piece of the mom.

Those are the arguments. There's nothing secondary about it, unless the viability of fully functional, non-dependent women is also "secondary" to the argument.

The first step to dehumanizing a human zygote is to claim that it doesn't possess life - that it shares the same status as a toenail or a cancer cell.

That argument works because a zygote is about as worthless to people who don't want children. Proclaiming a zygote is every bit as "human" as its mother doesn't win much sympathy because everyone knows a zygote is missing any and every attribute of viability necessary to conform to that definition. No one imagines a "zygote" when they think about the concept "human being."  There's good reason for that.

If you want to equivocate the utterly incomplete, totally dependent status of a human zygote with its fully functioning, non-dependent adult mother, there's nothing to discuss, is there?
If you don't want a child, they most certainly do share the same status as a cancer cell or toenail. A fetus is not primary to a woman's life unless she (or a bunch of mystics) wishes to force that status upon her by equivocating it with a chubby, drooling, cooing 6 month old infant.

If a zygote actually were the equivalent of a cancer cell, then any conversation about mom's will and rights wouldn't be necessary at all, would it?

The above from you makes me question that assumption. Who knows what else you'll attempt to argue is as individually "human."

Post 64

Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 10:31am

Teresa Summerlee Isanheart said:

As if pregnancy never causes harm?

I didn't claim that pregnancy never causes harm. I claimed that a zygote is an organism, while a cancer cell is not an organism and a toe is not an organism. The only other claim I made was that a zygote that was fertilized in a human woman is a member of the species homo sapiens, rather than a frog or any other critter to which it may bear a superficial resemblance.

I've said several times that I understand there are several arguments used by proponents of abortion rights, and I was simply refuting the most basic; a zygote, fetus, etc. is certainly not a piece of the mother's body, but is a separate, individual organism. I believe you must have gotten this point by now, yet you persist in putting additional arguments into my mouth or offering your own arguments against positions that I did not take.

Very well. Since you refuse to acknowledge the limits I placed on my own statements, I'll expand my end of the discussion to address a few of your positions.

Teresa Summerlee Isanheart said:

If you don't want a child, they most certainly do share the same status as a cancer cell or toenail. A fetus is not primary to a woman's life unless she (or a bunch of mystics) wishes to force that status upon her by equivocating it with a chubby, drooling, cooing 6 month old infant.

Am I primary to your life? Do you want me? Since we've never met, I'm assuming that the answer to both questions will be an emphatic "no." I hope you don't need "a bunch of mystics" to tell you that you shouldn't kill me. I hope you don't need me to take an intelligence and independence test to determine whether it's ok for you to kill me. I hope that if I encountered a medical condition where I was rendered completely helpless and unconscious you wouldn't find that you have the right to kill me.

Of course, you also are under no obligation to support me or tolerate me drawing upon your resources against your will to sustain myself. That is, you are under no such obligation unless you have, through intention or negligence, caused me to be in a position of helplessness. I know, I know. I've read your past posts, and I understand that you don't equivocate sex with consent to get pregnant. We can happily agree on that much at least since I don't see sex as consent to pregnancy either.   I do, however, feel responsible for all of my own actions and accept responsibility for their consequences. If I fire my rifle without an appropriate backstop, then I am responsible for any damage that rifle's bullet may cause downrange, even if I never intended or "consented" to cause that damage. The fact that in a one in a million chance my bullet hits a man I couldn't even see a mile away is not my punishment for experiencing the pleasure of firing a rifle. It is simply a result that I knew, or should have known, was possible when I fired the rifle without a foolproof backstop. If my action of firing my rifle puts the man in a position where he can no longer support himself, then I am responsible for supporting him. That isn't a punishment either.  It is simply just compensation.    As a being with free will I could refuse to support him, but ethically I should support him since his condition is a result of my actions.  If I refuse to support him, it would be a proper function of government to compel me to do so through civil courts. He is of no value to me, and the fact that he will have a claim on my productiveness even makes him a liability to me. I still shouldn't just kill him. His claim on me is a result of my actions, not his own. I didn't invite him to get in front of my bullet, but neither did he invite me to fire my rifle in his direction. The balance of responsibility clearly points to me. He hasn't violated my rights in any way.  I have no justification to kill him. If I did kill him, my plea that his financial claim on me justified a self-defense killing would (I hope) carry no weight in a criminal court. I could even claim that, to me, he is the equivalent of a cancer cell which I do not value, but that argument would sound ridiculous.

Of course, the analogy (the use of the word equivocation would be inappropriate here) follows that a couple engaged in sex knows, or should know, that unless they have a foolproof method of birth control, a pregnancy may occur. If that pregnancy does occur, it isn't a "punishment" for the pleasure of sex any more than gravity is a punishment for being near a massive solar body. It's just part of the nature of reality. The pregnancy is simply a possible result of sex, whether we want it to be or not. We can wish that it weren't so, but as Objectivists we should understand the dangers of pretending reality doesn't exist.  If two people engage in sex they must either accept the reality that it may result in a pregnancy, or they must ignore reality and attempt to live a fantasy.

If two people engage in sex and a pregnancy does occur, then they are faced with the reality of an organism of the species homo sapiens living in the woman's body and sapping her resources. That organism is, as you say, completely helpless, dependant, unintelligent, and unconscious. At this stage in its development, it lacks even the faculty of consciousness. It is, however, alive according to Ayn Rand's definition of life, a definition which I have adopted as my own.

We have a living instance of the species homo sapiens living inside a woman.  We are left with two broad categories of ethical arguments concerning abortion:

#1:  Is an initiation of force against any organism of the species homo sapiens improper, or are other requirements necessary to be considered "fully human" in the philosophical sense?

This question does not address the will or interests of the woman. It is only concerned with the definition of the point when a member of our species takes on the philosophical title of "human being" and has a right to live assuming that it hasn't violated any other person's rights. Ayn Rand has clearly stated her position that human rights are not achieved until birth. While I agree with nearly everything else I know of Ayn Rand's thoughts and opinions, I disagree with this conclusion. The conclusion seems to be based on the premise that an organism which is biologically a member of our species is not fully "human" in the philosophical sense until it achieves a particular level of self-consciousness and independence of action. I believe this argument to be flawed, and my reasoning is nothing you haven't heard before:

Some members of our species never achieve independence and a faculty for reason even after they are born. There are "born" members of our species who lack the ability to breath air, who lack the ability to move, who lack the ability to perceive anything outside of whatever confinement they are in, and who lack the ability to even think or reason. There are various reasons for these limitations, ranging from birth defects, to injuries to illness. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it is the Objectivist position that no person has the right to arbitrarily kill these people. The man with spinal cord damage after a car crash lying in a hospital in a coma can not think, perceive or move. He is not independent. In fact, he is totally dependent on other people. I understand that no person is automatically required to continue his support, but that is not the question at this moment. The question is whether we can justly plunge a knife into his heart and kill him like we would kill any non-human animal. I say that we should not, and that any such action would be murder. What of a one-day-old infant who is unable to breath naturally or move and is so brain damaged that consciousness will never occur? It is very likely to die of natural causes within the week anyway.  May I plunge a knife into that organism without cause, or does it possess the right to live?   I say that it has a right to live, and if I'm not mistaken this is also the traditional position held by Objectivists.

The only claim to humanity possessed by that defective one-day-old or that man from the car crash possess is the fact that they are a member of our species. They are of no "value" as human beings. The description I gave of the man leaves open the possibility of recovery, but that is only a potential, not an actual value. The injured man is not the same as the defective infant, and neither is the same as a zygote, but all three share the common trait of only being "human" insomuch as they are individual members of the species homo sapiens.

I seem to recall a passage from Ayn Rand where she specifies that a man in a vegetative state has a right to live because even though he can't exercise it currently, it is still his nature to live as a rational being. I intended to offer that passage in support of my ideas, but I could not find it.   The same argument would apply to a zygote: Although it is not yet capable of living as an independent, rational being, as a member of our species its nature is to do so.

#2: Even if a fetus were an individual member of our species, and even if it did qualify for a right to live, the mother is justified in killing it because it is residing in her body and living by consuming her resources.

None of us has an obligation to support a helpless, totally dependent human being. Neither do we have the right to intentionally kill a human being. In effect, what we have the right to do is ignore the person, abandon him, and let him die. Our hypothetical mom can't do that though, can she? I'm not sentencing her to anything. I'm not using my will to prevent her from abandoning the little zygote. The fundamental nature of reality is that she simply can't ignore the zygote and let it die of natural causes. If the fetus is viable and the pregnancy is "successful," then mom's body will feed and protect the fetus automatically. If her partner were incapacitated, she could walk away from him. If he were uninvited and incapacitated in her house, she could move him to the sidewalk to die, but she wouldn't be justified in plunging a knife into his heart. The nature of reality dictates that she simply does not have the choice of "walking away" from the fetus. Reality limits her to two choices: kill the fetus intentionally or allow it to keep consuming her resources.

This leads us to the final defense of abortion, the "self defense" killing of the fetus. Mom must kill the little zygote to keep it from stealing her energy and resources, giving her stretch marks, and ruining her reputation among her prudish neighbors. This ignores the fact that Mom and Dad put the fetus in that position to start with. No, they may not have intended to do so. Mom may not have consented to get pregnant, but Mom and Dad undeniably engaged in an action which they knew could result in a helpless human coming to life inside of Mom's womb. If I accidentally shoot a man, making him helpless and dependent, then I am responsible for supporting him. If my wife and I create a situation where a human being is helpless and totally dependent, then we are responsible for supporting it. In effect, the fetus does have a valid claim on the parents who caused it to be in a helpless situation. I should support the human that I placed in a helpless and dependent situation, but I do have the ability to walk away. My wife on the other hand, lacks even that ability. I could abandon my wife and little zygote, but my wife's only options are to kill the zygote or allow her body to support it for a few months. Once it is born she will have some new options, but reality doesn't give her any others until then. Since she and I are both wholly responsible (not half each) for putting the zygote there, neither of us has any right to kill it simply for being where we caused it to be.

William Dwyer said:

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.

Clearly the person driving a car in a normal, responsible manner will not cause an accident. If a child runs in front of a responsibly driven car and gets hit, then the child caused the accident. To be even more precise, let's assume that the person who ran into the road was a perfectly functioning adult not under any form of duress. When the adult ran into the road, he didn't consent to getting hit by a car, but he did voluntarily engage in an action which he knew or should have known may result in such an outcome. He is not victimized by the car that hits him nor by the driver of that car. In fact, he is responsible for any damage he causes to the car that hit him. The couple who engages in sex without foolproof birth control are in the position of the man running into the road - both are responsible for results they caused but did not intend or "consent" to.

In conclusion I would like to point out that I did not point to any kind of religious justification for any part of these arguments. I would also like to point out that I have no overpowering desire to exert my will over the rest of humanity. I consider myself an Objectivist. I agree with the fundamentals of Objectivist ethics - especially the principle that the only thing a man must never do is initiate force against another. I think it is safe for me to assume that any reader of this post who considers himself an Objectivist would be of the opinion that the murder of an adult should rightfully be punished under an objective set of laws. I think it is also safe to assume that such an Objectivist would not base his opinion on religious proscriptions against murder, nor would it be based on his desire to rule over other mens' wills. I can assure you that my objections to abortion come from the same motive as your objections to the murder of an adult.

Post 65

Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 2:44pm

No, P -

I didn't claim that pregnancy never causes harm. I claimed that a zygote is an organism, while a cancer cell is not an organism and a toe is not an organism. The only other claim I made was that a zygote that was fertilized in a human woman is a member of the species homo sapiens, rather than a frog or any other critter to which it may bear a superficial resemblance.

You said it wasn't a malfunction. I disagree, because it absolutely could be as much a malfunction as any other.

I've said several times that I understand there are several arguments used by proponents of abortion rights, and I was simply refuting the most basic; a zygote, fetus, etc. is certainly not a piece of the mother's body, but is a separate, individual organism.

And I disagree. A zygote's inherently dependent state makes it a woman's property.

Am I primary to your life? Do you want me? Since we've never met, I'm assuming that the answer to both questions will be an emphatic "no." I hope you don't need "a bunch of mystics" to tell you that you shouldn't kill me. I hope you don't need me to take an intelligence and independence test to determine whether it's ok for you to kill me. I hope that if I encountered a medical condition where I was rendered completely helpless and unconscious you wouldn't find that you have the right to kill me.

P, don't compare yourself with a zygote. It won't work.

Of course, the analogy (the use of the word equivocation would be inappropriate here) follows that a couple engaged in sex knows, or should know, that unless they have a foolproof method of birth control, a pregnancy may occur. If that pregnancy does occur, it isn't a "punishment" for the pleasure of sex any more than gravity is a punishment for being near a massive solar body. It's just part of the nature of reality. The pregnancy is simply a possible result of sex, whether we want it to be or not. We can wish that it weren't so, but as Objectivists we should understand the dangers of pretending reality doesn't exist. If two people engage in sex they must either accept the reality that it may result in a pregnancy, or they must ignore reality and attempt to live a fantasy.

Not so much an equivocation as it is a gross misuse of analogy. You're introducing a "materialist" point of view, one that ignores the nature of an entity other than its material attributes. Reality is more than the physical world, P. Reality includes the nature, and understanding of what exists. Of course if all that exists to our nature is what you see, and the biological functions that maintain the appearance, then we'd be no better off than mice, horses, or plants, entities that do not rely on reason, but on instinct to survive. Reason and free will are distinguishing characteristics used to define "human being." If you're denying this, just say so.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=reg_ar_oflivingdeath
Rand's lecture "On Living Death"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10953&news_iv_ctrl=1021
A Culture of Living Death by Alex Epstein

Post 66

Sunday, November 27, 2011 - 9:09pm

In the first post of this thread, I wrote,

"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."

P replied,

Clearly the person driving a car in a normal, responsible manner will not cause an accident. If a child runs in front of a responsibly driven car and gets hit, then the child caused the accident. To be even more precise, let's assume that the person who ran into the road was a perfectly functioning adult not under any form of duress. When the adult ran into the road, he didn't consent to getting hit by a car, but he did voluntarily engage in an action which he knew or should have known may result in such an outcome. He is not victimized by the car that hits him nor by the driver of that car. In fact, he is responsible for any damage he causes to the car that hit him. The couple who engages in sex without foolproof birth control are in the position of the man running into the road - both are responsible for results they caused but did not intend or "consent" to.

The adult who ran out in front of the car "caused" -- i.e. was morally responsible for -- the accident not simply because he knew or should have known that his action could possibly result in such an outcome, but because he acted irresponsibly by darting out in the middle of the street in front a moving car that had the right of way. The person morally responsible for the accident in this case is the one who violated the rules of the road by acting in a negligent and irresponsible manner.

To return to my original example, If you hit and kill a two-year old child who darts out in front of your car chasing a ball, the child is not morally responsible for the accident because he didn't know any better, and you're not morally responsible for it because you were obeying the rules of the road. And this is true, even though by choosing to drive, you knew that there was a slim chance that you could be involved in such an accident.

Similarly, by using responsible contraception, you know there is a slim chance that the contraception may fail. Yet it would be just as wrong to hold you morally responsible for the accidental pregnancy on the grounds that responsible contraception is not foolproof, as it would be to hold you morally responsible for killing the 2-year old child on the grounds that responsible driving is not accident proof.

I think it is safe for me to assume that any reader of this post who considers himself an Objectivist would be of the opinion that the murder of an adult should rightfully be punished under an objective set of laws. I think it is also safe to assume that such an Objectivist would not base his opinion on religious proscriptions against murder, nor would it be based on his desire to rule over other mens' wills. I can assure you that my objections to abortion come from the same motive as your objections to the murder of an adult.

Then would you say that a woman who has an abortion, or a doctor who performs one, should receive the same penalty as someone who murders an adult, namely life in prison or the death penalty?

Post 67

Monday, November 28, 2011 - 11:55am

P wrote,

Ayn Rand has clearly stated her position that human rights are not achieved until birth. While I agree with nearly everything else I know of Ayn Rand's thoughts and opinions, I disagree with this conclusion. The conclusion seems to be based on the premise that an organism which is biologically a member of our species is not fully "human" in the philosophical sense until it achieves a particular level of self-consciousness and independence of action. I believe this argument to be flawed, and my reasoning is nothing you haven't heard before:

Some members of our species never achieve independence and a faculty for reason even after they are born. There are "born" members of our species who lack the ability to breath air, who lack the ability to move, who lack the ability to perceive anything outside of whatever confinement they are in, and who lack the ability to even think or reason. There are various reasons for these limitations, ranging from birth defects, to injuries to illness. Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it is the Objectivist position that no person has the right to arbitrarily kill these people. The man with spinal cord damage after a car crash lying in a hospital in a coma can not think, perceive or move. He is not independent. In fact, he is totally dependent on other people. I understand that no person is automatically required to continue his support, but that is not the question at this moment. The question is whether we can justly plunge a knife into his heart and kill him like we would kill any non-human animal. I say that we should not, and that any such action would be murder. What of a one-day-old infant who is unable to breath naturally or move and is so brain damaged that consciousness will never occur? It is very likely to die of natural causes within the week anyway. May I plunge a knife into that organism without cause, or does it possess the right to live? I say that it has a right to live, and if I'm not mistaken this is also the traditional position held by Objectivists.

I don't think so. If there is no consciousness or even the possibility of it, then you don't have a viable human being. In that case, there is nothing to be gained by waiting for him to die of natural causes. Not that one would want to "plunge a knife" into him, but a humane form of euthanasia would certainly be a rational option.

The only claim to humanity possessed by that defective one-day-old or that man from the car crash possess is the fact that they are a member of our species.

No, simply belonging to the same species does not confer a right to life.

The description I gave of the man leaves open the possibility of recovery, but that is only a potential, not an actual value.

This case is different. The man was already a rights-bearing person. The fact that he is in a coma is no different than his being asleep or temporarily unconscious. We can reasonably assume that he has not chosen to die -- has not given permission for others to kill him -- simply because he is in a non-conscious state from which he will recover.

I seem to recall a passage from Ayn Rand where she specifies that a man in a vegetative state has a right to live because even though he can't exercise it currently, it is still his nature to live as a rational being. I intended to offer that passage in support of my ideas, but I could not find it.

I don't recall such a passage, but it would make sense only if the person had already attained a level of independence from which he was temporarily incapacitated.

The same argument would apply to a zygote: Although it is not yet capable of living as an independent, rational being, as a member of our species its nature is to do so.

It is not in the nature of a zygote to live as an independent rational being, because it is not an independent rational being. Again, a potential human being is not the same as an actual human being.

(Edited by William Dwyer on 11/28, 11:56am)

Post 68

Monday, November 28, 2011 - 12:55pm

Sometimes there is a confusion between the intellectual foundation of individual rights and the attachment of those rights to a specific person.

Our rights derive from man's nature - which is a metaphysical concept. Man, meaning all men, have rights because of the nature of man. It is not the individual man's consciousness that gives him rights and his rights are not different because he is a different human from other humans. Our rights are universal - they are common to all who are human beings. That's why being asleep, or being in a coma doesn't alter them. That's why a developmentally challenged individual still has rights. The statement that man has a rational faculty is a statement about our nature as a species and does not have anything to do with whether or not a given individual acts rationally or not. If we were born human, we have individual rights.

But we don't become independent - that is we are not "individuals" until we are outside of the womb and that is why rights don't attach at conception or during pregnancy. We aren't an individual human being until we are born. We are a part of our mother and she has the rights that attached to her at her birth. Furthermore, there can be no such thing as a right to violate a right. If a woman has the right to own her body, then there can be no such thing as a right of a fetus to occupy it against her will.

And, Bill is correct in pointing out the difference between actual and potential - that is where most mistakes are made in this argument. The last statement of his post says it all, "It is not in the nature of a zygote to live as an independent rational being, because it is not an independent rational being. Again, a potential human being is not the same as an actual human being."

Post 69

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 10:40pm

William Dwyer said:

To return to my original example, If you hit and kill a two-year old child who darts out in front of your car chasing a ball, the child is not morally responsible for the accident because he didn't know any better, and you're not morally responsible for it because you were obeying the rules of the road. And this is true, even though by choosing to drive, you knew that there was a slim chance that you could be involved in such an accident.

Similarly, by using responsible contraception, you know there is a slim chance that the contraception may fail. Yet it would be just as wrong to hold you morally responsible for the accidental pregnancy on the grounds that responsible contraception is not foolproof, as it would be to hold you morally responsible for killing the 2-year old child on the grounds that responsible driving is not accident proof.

True, the 2-year old child is not morally responsible for the crash. The child is still the cause of the crash though. Just to help isolate the factors, let's assume that the child's guardian had just died of a totally unexpected stroke. Now we have a situation where nobody is morally responsible for the crash. The driver is innocent. The child is incapable of guilt, and no adult exists to take responsibility for the child's actions. We don't have to assign moral guilt to anyone in order to conclude that the child was the cause of the crash. Yes, the driver must accept the fact that such a scenario may occur, but the driver can be sure that he will not be the primary cause of such a scenario.

A couple that uses a contraceptive during sex has no outside entity, like the 2-year old from the previous example, to confuse the matter. If the woman gets pregnant you can't possibly find any outside cause of the pregnancy. Unlike the driver, who knew that he would not be the cause of a crash as long as he took proper precautions, the couple knows that if an accidental pregnancy occurs they will be the primary cause.

William Dwyer said:

Then would you say that a woman who has an abortion, or a doctor who performs one, should receive the same penalty as someone who murders an adult, namely life in prison or the death penalty?

The doctor who performs an abortion should be convicted of murder, while the mother and supporting medical staff should be convicted as conspirators, accessories, or murderers in their own right, depending on the specific definitions in the laws of the particular jurisdiction. As to penalties, I will say they should be the same as those for killing a "born" baby and leave it at that.

William Dwyer said:

I don't think so. If there is no consciousness or even the possibility of it, then you don't have a viable human being. In that case, there is nothing to be gained by waiting for him to die of natural causes. Not that one would want to "plunge a knife" into him, but a humane form of euthanasia would certainly be a rational option.

You pinned me down on the crime and punishment question, so I'll return the favor: Would you say that a person who plunges a knife into a baby born with no consciousness or possibility thereof should be held blameless? Ayn Rand reluctantly concluded that there should be no law against animal torture. The defective baby, if subject to humane euthanasia, is obviously a less than human living entity. Can someone who enjoys such things dismember it for fun? Would you charge the mother with a criminal act if she did so?

Steve Wolfer said:

Our rights derive from man's nature - which is a metaphysical concept. Man, meaning all men, have rights because of the nature of man. It is not the individual man's consciousness that gives him rights and his rights are not different because he is a different human from other humans. Our rights are universal - they are common to all who are human beings. That's why being asleep, or being in a coma doesn't alter them. That's why a developmentally challenged individual still has rights. The statement that man has a rational faculty is a statement about our nature as a species and does not have anything to do with whether or not a given individual acts rationally or not. If we were born human, we have individual rights.

But we don't become independent - that is we are not "individuals" until we are outside of the womb and that is why rights don't attach at conception or during pregnancy. We aren't an individual human being until we are born. We are a part of our mother and she has the rights that attached to her at her birth. Furthermore, there can be no such thing as a right to violate a right. If a woman has the right to own her body, then there can be no such thing as a right of a fetus to occupy it against her will.

Your assertion that we don't become "individuals" until outside the womb is the crux of the whole matter. I believe I have provided a strong argument against your position that a fetus is a piece of the mother. Yes, it is attached to her. No, it isn't her. It is a different organism.

That organism is completely dependent on the mother, but the mother and father are each wholly responsible for its helpless condition.

If I intentionally or accidentally place you in a helpless condition through no fault of your own, then you have a valid claim on me for support. Yes, I own my body, but that doesn't stop you from having a valid claim on me due to my actions. I realize that we still disagree about the humanity of a zygote, but if that zygote is human, then it has a valid claim on the mother and father who caused it to be in a helpless condition. I'm not fond of having to use the qualification, "if the zygote is human." That is why I originally tried to restrict my arguments to those pointing out that the zygote was an individual organism of the species homo sapiens. None of the other arguments are necessary so long as we disagree on that fact.

Post 70

Wednesday, November 30, 2011 - 11:28pm

Your [Steve's] assertion that we don't become "individuals" until outside the womb is the crux of the whole matter. I believe I have provided a strong argument against your position that a fetus is a piece of the mother. Yes, it is attached to her. No, it isn't her. It is a different organism.

You continue to maintain that a zygote/embryo/fetus is a human being. It isn't. It will be, but potential is not actual. And we talk about "individual" rights and the zygote/embryo/fetus is not an individual.
-------------

If I intentionally or accidentally place you in a helpless condition through no fault of your own, then you have a valid claim on me for support.

That sounds nice, but it just isn't true. People are constantly finding themselves in a helpless condition as the result of the actions of another... A person gets laid off from his job - no fault of his own, or the interest rates go up and they end up unable to pay their adjustable rate mortgage - again not fault of their own... the fact is that people may find themselves in a helpless condition for any number of reasons that are no fault of their own. I might need surgery that only one person in the country can do and I can't afford him - you wouldn't say that surgeon is making me helpless. A zygote cannot be "made" helpless because it has no other state. But it all comes back to the fact that a zygote is NOT a human being.
--------------

You didn't answer the question of how you justify the violation of the mother's rights. If she does not want this zygote in her body, then you are either saying she has no right to her body, or that there is such a thing as a right to violate that right. How do you avoid the contradiction of calling for the right to violate a right which invalidates the concept of rights?
---------------

On the issue you are discussing with Bill on a baby born with a severe mental defect... The baby, once it has been born, is a human being. Does anyone claim that having some mental defect make it a frog, or a cat, or some other species? Of course not. The baby, by being human, has acquired individual rights. They attach because of the nature of humans - and that is univeral to all humans. No one needs to come measure the baby's consciousness to see if it is human. If the damage is so bad that the baby can be considered brain dead, then the issue isn't about does it have rights, it is about no longer being a live human being and they can stop the beating of the heart.

Post 71

Thursday, December 1, 2011 - 9:46am

P,

The existential cause of something is that without which it would not have occurred. So the existential cause of the driver's hitting the two-year old is both the presence of the two-year old in the driver's way, and the driver himself. Observe that no one is morally responsible for the accident -- no one is morally at fault -- but both parties are existentially responsible for it, because the accident would not have occurred without their mutual presence and involvement.

Similarly, in the case of an unintended pregnancy that is due to the failure of a contraceptive device, both the act of sexual intercourse and the failed contraceptive device are existential causes of the pregnancy, as the pregnancy would not occurred unless the contraceptive device had failed. Suppose the child had been crossing the street with the green light accompanied by his mother, and the driver's brakes had failed, causing him to hit the child. The failure of the brakes could then be considered an existential cause of the accident, in the same way as the failure of the contraceptive device can be considered an existential cause of the pregnancy. You write,

A couple that uses a contraceptive during sex has no outside entity, like the 2-year old from the previous example, to confuse the matter. If the woman gets pregnant you can't possibly find any outside cause of the pregnancy.

There are at least two causes here -- the act of sexual intercourse and the failed contraception.

Unlike the driver, who knew that he would not be the cause of a crash as long as he took proper precautions, the couple knows that if an accidental pregnancy occurs they will be the primary cause.

The driver doesn't "know" that he will not be the (existential) cause of an accident if he takes proper precautions. Even with proper precautions, his brakes may fail or a child dart out in front of his car unexpectedly. The only way to avoid the possibility of such an accident is not to drive at all. I don't know why you introduce primary versus secondary cause into the discussion. Both the driver and the child are causes. You can't say that one is primary and the other secondary, unless you're talking about moral responsibility, since without the presence of both parties, the accident would not have occurred.

Post 72

Thursday, December 8, 2011 - 8:22am