Partial Birth Abortion: ARI vs. Ayn Rand

Post 21

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 12:57am

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 4:33am

I have avoided this these past three or so years because my own views are not clear even to me and I never see a dispassionate discussion here, either. (Witness the flame to Dennis Hardin from William Dwyer.) Allow me to continue my meta-monologue from Post 17.

1. Rights begin at birth because at that point, the baby is outside the mother's body.

2. Before birth, it is physically impossible to define the baby in any terms that would not apply to any other cell, organ, or system within the mother. So, the choices lie entire with her. It is her body.

3. Before birth, no one else can care for the baby.

4. A newborn is not as helpless as an unborn. A newborn can be cared for by someone else.

5. Can a mother abandon a newborn? Does she have a "duty" to find an adopter? (Duty is discussed elsewhere, but we can accept that Ayn Rand did not approve of it.) If the mother has no "duty" then what is the source of the (apparently preferred circumlocution) "obligation" to find an adopter, rather than abandon? What is the difference between abandoning a newborn and having an abortion?

6. Does the state then have a compelling interest to assume responsibility for the newborn in order to defend its rights?

7. Would that not put the government in the baby business?

8.  The police would be empowered to stop any pregnant woman and arrest her, take her to a judge, who will accept her evidence of ability and intent to support. So, in order to be pregnant, (and avoid the hassle of arrest) a woman would need some kind of permit from the state which she would apply for, showing that she intends to support -- and is capable of supporting the newborn.

9. Perhaps pregnancy should require a bond posted with the state in case the mother defaults.

Tough questions. Anyone have any answers?

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/24, 4:35am)

Post 23

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 8:39am

Mike, your point number two is false, and that is obvious simply on its face, since if the unborn child cannot be differentiated from the mother, then instead of saying she was pregnant, we would either call her obese or say she has a tumor. The child is genetically distinct, and physically distinct, with its own closed circulatory system and entire body, etc. Babies are not buds. The mammalian condition of pregnancy is essentially the development of a shell-less egg within the mother's body. We don't say that turtle eggs are a part of the mother turtle. Of course, this valid scientific point doesn't matter except to show that one cannot prima facie deny that a separate individual exists - it does. Whether that individual has rights as a person is a separate question.

Ted

Post 24

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 9:46am

Years ago, I heard Nathaniel Branden say that abortion is justified, because a woman has property rights over the contents of her own body. Since the fetus is part of the contents of her body, she can dispose of it as she chooses. I don't think this is a valid argument.

Consider. A woman has property rights over the contents of her own home. Since her baby is part of the contents of her home, can she dispose of it as she chooses? Obviously not. She has a duty not to harm it. (By "duty" in this context, I don't mean Kantian duty!)

A woman has property rights over the contents of what she owns only as long as those contents do not include a rights-bearing person. So, we beg the question if we dismiss the anti-abortionist with the glib invocation of bodily ownership.

Nevertheless, a woman should have a right to choose whether or not to bear a child. Once having made that choice, one could argue that she is responsible for the child. But at what point can we say that she has made that choice? Certainly, if she chooses to give birth to it, she has chosen to be responsible for its welfare.

Can we argue that if she chooses to carry it beyond a certain point in her pregnancy, she has consented to be responsible for it? Perhaps. But there needs to be some objective criteria for deciding what point that is, whether first trimester, second trimester, or some other stage in the pregnancy.

Viability outside the womb is sometimes posited as a standard for having a right to life, so that if the fetus could survive outside the womb at a certain stage of the pregnancy, abortion is prohibited at that stage and beyond. I am sympathetic to this argument, but only if the woman's health is not an issue. The only problem I see with it is that it is somewhat difficult to determine at exactly what point viability has or has not been attained.

With birth -- and the separation of the offspring from the mother -- there is a bright line -- a clear, unequivocal standard. There is no question about whether or not the offspring has been fully separated from the mother's body if it is a baby -- a separate and distinct entity. It is this fact that makes birth such an appealing standard for ascribing rights to a newly formed person.

- Bill

Post 25

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 10:37am

Ted: "The child is genetically distinct, and physically distinct, with its own closed circulatory system and entire body, etc."

Wait, Ted. A fetus is not physically distinct with its own closed circulatory system (nevermind its entire body) until a certain point in pregnancy. So even if your only claim is that fetus is a separate individual (not whether it has a claim to rights), that's still false until well past the point of conception. In early pregnancy, a fetus is nothing more than an undeveloped blob, albeit with genetically distinct material.

Post 26

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 11:30am

Babies are not buds. The mammalian condition of pregnancy is essentially the development of a shell-less egg within the mother's body. We don't say that turtle eggs are a part of the mother turtle.

And by just this standard, the turtle is not a turtle until it hatches from the egg......

So likewise the birthing of the human - life, as human, distinct and on its own,begins at birth...

Further, the fetus is like a car on an assembly line - at what point is is a car? when its engine is cranked and is off the asembly line..... so, too, the fetus, when birthing, its consciousness is activated with the breathing of air from the lungs, and its life as a human begins.....

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/24, 11:34am)

(Edited by robert malcom on 5/24, 11:34am)

Post 27

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 1:17pm

Jon and Robert, having a degree in biology, I find your claims funny - and irrelevant to the argument. The fetus is always distinct, never a "blob," and in no way analogous to a car or its parts. Cars don't grow. Babies aren't assembled from body parts. To test the authority with which you speak, can either of you define enterocoely without looking it up? In any case, it's bad form to deny an obvious truth (that a human fetus is human, and an unambiguous individual from the moment of conception) which doesn't impact the conclusion (that I presume) you wish to come to just because your opponent has pointed that truth out. I did say that the mere fact that something is an individual and human doesn't ipso facto make it a rights bearing person, in case you only read half of my post.

It's like you two are saying you didn't rob the bank, and it was just fake money anyway.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/24, 1:29pm)

Post 28

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 2:35pm

Ted, despite your obnoxious reponse, I'll clarify what I said.

My point was that in early pregnancy, a "baby" is a mass of cells that haven't undergone much differentiation. It doesn't have a body with developed organs yet. That's not something you need a biology degree to know. Are you seriously denying this?

Also, I already realized you said the mere fact that something is an individual and human doesn't necessarily make it a rights-bearing person. So there's no need be defensive about that.

However, I disagree with your contention that an embryo can rationally be considered an individual. An "individual" has cells that are highly differentiated, forming specialized organs, and is physically separate (i.e., unconnected) to anyone else. As AR said, an embryo or fetus is a potential individual, but not an actual one. You might want to read what she wrote on this topic sometime.

(Edited by Jon Trager on 5/24, 3:24pm)

Post 29

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 2:55pm

As long as everyone stays talking about nothing more than the merely physical biology (DNA, cellular-growth, egg, blastula, fetus, etc), ie the mere meat, the definitional criteria of 'human' will always stay superficial and chronically debatable as to which nanosecond a 'human' is created.

Should the terms 'consciousness', 'spirit', or even 'person' (which is more than a physical body) be ever considered relevent, then maybe an argument about rights-possession can get somewhere.

LLAP
J:D

Post 30

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 3:41pm

Should the terms 'consciousness', 'spirit', or even 'person' (which is more than a physical body) be ever considered relevent, then maybe an argument about rights-possession can get somewhere.

And ts precisely what am raising, that the consciousness - the 'being' of the human - begins when the lungs breathes the air and activates the independent brain - and the body, the 'meat', is then separate from the woman - and thus Life - human life begins at birth.... indeed, as far as other organisms go, the same, on a more limited scale, applies as well....

Post 31

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:11pm

Talking about "meat" alone is indeed pointless, but further confusing the issue doesn't help.

"However, I disagree with your contention that an embryo can rationally be considered an individual. An "individual" has cells that are highly differentiated, forming specialized organs, and is physically separate (i.e., unconnected) to anyone else. As AR said, an embryo or fetus is a potential individual, but not an actual one. You might want to read what she wrote on this topic sometime."

Okay, then you are simply using individual in a different sense. Consider this, can there be three and a half individual fetuses developing in the womb? This question is perfectly clear and understandable, (and ignoring, for the sake of argument, conjoined twins) there certainly cannot be. While you are speaking of autonomy, I am speaking of numerical individuality. Since it would be absurd for anyone to assert that a fetus is autonomous, your point is valid. But given the wording used by yourself and him until I obnoxiously prompted you and Robert for a clearer answer, my objections were perfectly valid.

No, of course one doesn't need a degree in biology to have a good enough grasp on the issues to have an informed opinion. But the opinion has to be informed by real knowledge, and biological facts aren't trumped by philosophically desired results. (I am not, specifically, accusing you, Jon, of this, and thank you for your response, which I have sanctioned.) Just as I wouldn't make an assertion about computer programming in an argument on copyright law, when I know some html and basic but little else, I find it irresponsible when people make scientific statements (such as Peikoff's hostility to the Big Bang theory) when they think that denying well-established science furthers some other agenda.

I have sanctioned your response, not because I agree with any conclusion you want to reach, but because you are willing to make the effort to be clear. I am much more interested, to paraphrase another thread elsewhere, in clarity than agreement.

Ted

Post 32

Thursday, May 24, 2007 - 6:40pm

A strange position, on the surface - that a mother has the right to kill her offspring at any point in their lives. It may be at least worth some discussion:

Note that prior to the concept that we acquire "rights" as citizens or members of society at large, there was the widely held position that each youth was essentially the property of their parents or guardians until they reached a point of maturity such that the parent or guardian was willing to introduce them into society as an adult. Prior to that point, the guardian both took responsibility for the actions of the youth and had the corresponding right to terminate their existence if they became a liability.

Note that this has not changed, except that now the state claims this right.

Even after the youth was introduced to society as a responsible adult, the general practice was to hold both the individual and his family responsible for his or her actions. After all, the son or daughter would not exist without parents and/or guardians, so there is a logic to assigning them responsibility for what that son or daughter does.

Today, however, we do have alternatives - to family or state - in the form of institutions such as insurance companies or mutual funds. One could imagine a society in which a person's status - ability to get into exclusive malls or clubs, for example would be a function of the value of shares in their nanotrust. (google "nanocorps" if this concept is unfamiliar). Or of the level of bonding and/or insurance coverage. In these cases, instead of the parent making an informed, but not necessarily expert choice about the level of risk posed by a child, or the state making a collective ignorant and non-expert choice, you would have a market entity whose profits depended upon making accurate risk/reward assessments backing the individual - or not.

In this case, a high-risk/low-productivity person would be much more limited in his or her social/economic options, having to pay high premiums for extra bonding or insurance, while a low-risk/high-productivity individual would find access in general easy and relatively cheap. There would be no need for a parent to step in and terminate a wayward child whose actions might bankrupt the parent. That child would simply find it impossible to get into places where he or she could do much damage. He or she would have to take jobs no one else wanted in order to pay for food and minimal housing, with the option that a choice to be more rational and productive would gradually improve his or her credit rating and life would start getting easier and more fun.

Post 33

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:24am

Just a question, and a somewhat rhetorical one to everyone on this thread.

If there are a percentage of pregnancies where the fetus may cause death to the mother if the pregnancy is carried out to term, and if we give any argument that a fetus can be considered an individual in the later stages of a pregnancy, then this implies that individual is afforded all of the rights that the constitution guarantees to protect. So suppose there is a pregnancy where the mother is at risk of death if they do not abort, let's say the third trimester even, if we have made any arguments that the fetus in the third trimester can be considered an individual or anytime prior, do we have to have a court trial, one lawyer representing the mother, the other lawyer representing the fetus, and a judge and jury to consider who gets to live and who gets to die?

I can't see how anyone can rationally argue out of that contradiction. Either an individual is an individual and has all the rights afforded by the constitution, or it is not an individual. And if we ever give a fetus the legal status of an individual, how do we reconcile cases where the mother is at risk to her own life?

Post 34

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 8:25am

Phil: "A strange position, on the surface - that a mother has the right to kill her offspring at any point in their lives."

As far as I know, no Objectivist believes a mother has the right to kill her offspring at any point in their lives. Objectivists believe a mother has a right to kill a mass of largely undifferentiated cells within her body.

What gets me about many pro-lifers is they talk as though from the moment of conception a mother has a fully formed or even partially formed baby inside her uterus. They completely ignore the fact that in early pregnancy, the human fetus is less developed than a frog or a fish.

Post 35

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 3:40pm

I think Rand's view of abortion is very un-Rand like, but before I am excoriated for expressing that, please, I am expressing this as someone who greatly admires and was influenced by her writings.

That mass of seething protoplasm is an unfurling DNA process, a continuous process that both precedes and follows the moment of birth.   The only unatural impediment to completion is the deliberate act of termination.   It is only a temporal bias that separates the concept 'potential' from 'actual.' The determining factor is the passage of time.

That mass of seething protoplasm most often comes about through the deliberate, if not 'intentional', invitation of the principals.   A deliberate, if not intentional, act. There is no such thing as 'accidental copulation.'   Please descibe it, if it exists.   "Gee, I was screwing in a light bulb, up on a ladder, and I was kind of inexlpicably aroused at the time, then I slipped and fell and fell on my significant other and accidentally achieved not only penetration but climax, and son of a bitch, didn't she get pregnant. It was an accident!"

No, it's more like, "Gee, I didn't intend to live in a universe where a consequence of copulation is the invitation to life of another individual, I intented to live in a Universe where my Holy Intentions controlled reality and bent it to my will, rendeirng copulation into entertainment unless it first check in with my Holy Intent."    Ie, a very un-Randian intention.

By admitting the irrational irresponsibility of just this one exception, "It's ok for the strong to immolate the weak, even if the weak are here and in 'conflict' as a result of our own deliberate though unintentinal actions," Rand opens up the Universe of possibilities to exactly that which she clearly otherwise abhors.   She justifies the convenience of resolving that 'conflict' based on the arbitration of brute force; the here and now at nature's Table are able to treat the newly and innocently invited with impunity, based on nothing more suibstantive than the brute force of the strong justifying the convenience of the strong to deal with the weak with impunity.   The resp;onsibility for the perceived conflict is squarely on the shoulders of the adults in the room, through their actions, their Holy intentions be damned.

But, in a conflict between the strong and the weak, the weak must go, because the life of the strong is paramount.    Marx's Tribe, being the strongest of the strong, thus has its license to do what it will with the weakest of the weak, ie, any individual, justified on the supremacy of the life of the strong.

By embracing just this one glaring exception of convenience in her philosophy, she permits the entire thing to be destroyed.

There are obvious exceptions to this. "Rape" is only deliberate on the part of one party, and if I were emperor, the penalty of 'negligent life' would be added to the rapist's list of charges should the victim become pregnant and choose to abort, or, "attempted negligent life" would be added in the instance of accidentaly risking but failing to produce life.    We prosecute 'negligent death', and it is unclear why we do not also prosecute 'negligent life' for exactly the same reason, that we value life and not death.

"I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine."

does not have an exception that says, "Except for me(ie, her.)"   So, it is hard to understand how her belief system could justify "I will ask this inevitable life to be, this life that I deliberately invited, to exist as a temporary consequence of my entertainment, whose continued existence is subject to nothing more substantial than the whim of my Holy intentions."

If the strongest against the weakest can justify that, then the Tribe against any one of us can justify that as well.

regards,
Fred

Post 36

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 4:23pm

So what's with all the deleted posts? Looks like I may have missed some colorful commentary. I will have to watch this thread more carefully.

William said, in response to me:

Dennis wrote,
Would anyone seriously suggest that �rights begin at birth� means that the mother has every right to arbitrarily kill the fetus the day before she delivers?
Yes!
Or the week before?
Yes!

He then proceeds to say that I am a "lost cause."

Can anyone imagine an Objectivist saying such things on a national television show, and what the reaction would be? Can you seriously entertain such nonsense?

Perhaps you can. I am sorry that I cannot bring myself to invest any energy in debating something so patently ridiculous.

Post 37

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 5:18pm

No person shall be denied life or liberty without due process of law.

No person shall be denied life or liberty without due process of law.

The question is not about individuality. A fertilized egg is an individual.

The question is not about whether the fetus is human. It is neither an oak nor an antelope.

The question is not whether the fetus is alive. The question is about whether we can kill it.

The question is, "When does a fetus become a person?" Not just a human living individual. A fertilized egg is human, living, and individual. When does it become a person, protected by the Fifth Amendment?

Ted Keer

Post 38

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 6:40pm

Ted Keer asked: The question is, "When does a fetus become a person?" Not just a human living individual. A fertilized egg is human, living, and individual. When does it become a person, protected by the Fifth Amendment?

Like much else, including significant portions of Objectivism itself, the law looks to religion and generally speaking, your rights start at about the Age of Reason, say an arbitrary SEVEN years of age. The question is: how old does a child have to be to stand trial? Below the age of seven, you are not considered responsible for your actions in any way. Between seven and "adult" (also somewhat arbitrary), you are within the juvenile court system. The overarching maxim is that juveniles have no rights... unless they do. Certain Supreme Court cases such as "in re Gault" have established Constitutional protections for juvemiles. Since then, we have moved to prosecuting juveniles as adults for serious ("Class 1") offenses. Of course, in that case, the defendant enjoys all the rights of an adult. Between that Scylla and Charybdis, a juvenile's best interests are overseen by the court according to parens patriae (the state as parent). That, too, is in flux, as much is in our post-modernist world.

Abstract of IN RE GAULT, 387 U.S. 1 (1967) at
http://www.oyez.org/cases/1960-1969/1966/1966_116/
Fuller citation at
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=387&invol=1

One could argue that an infant -- lacking reason -- has no rights. A reply would be that the infant has potential in the Aristotlean sense. But, then, so would an unborn baby, be a "potential." In fact, heck, even at 58, I have not yet reached my fullest potential. (:-) So, none of that actually helps. That failing, in fact, is the source of this and all other discussions on this topic. Unlike gravity or the kinetic theory of heat or even the taxonomy of species, this has not been resolved.

The argument from "potentiality" requires a metric of potential, truly a volt meter for rights.

John Armaos asked a cogent question. Is it possible for a mother to say of her infant that it endangered her life and therefore she had the right to kill it? At what age would that argument fail?

When I read about so-called "pro-life" and allegedly "pro-choice" zealots, I wonder how much this any of them has actually thought through. I have sanctioned a few of the posts here, not because I agreed with the conclusions, but because I admired the questions.

Post 39

Friday, May 25, 2007 - 7:47pm