Partial Birth Abortion: ARI vs. Ayn Rand

Dennis wrote,

The right to abortion derives from a woman's right to control her own body, which is absolute. As long as the fetus is dependent on her, it has no rights. Once it can survive without her as a host--and this can be determined objectively--she no longer has the right to destroy it. The difficulty is with the medical definition of where viability begins. But as Teresa stated--and you seemed to agree--there simply is no real debate about this within the last week or two prior to birth. No woman should have the right to arbitrarily kill a child at that point.

I say arbitrarily, because I still consider the mother's life and rights to take precedence, even then. If there is any question about a potential threat to her health or safety at any stage prior to natural delivery, she has no obligation to wait for nature to take its course. She can simply have the fetus removed with absolutely no regard for its capacity for independent survival. If there is a reasonable chance of viability, however, every precaution should be taken to maximize that potential.

I consider the statement "rights begin at birth" to be on the same status as any generalization or abstraction. One cannot simply take it at face value and deduce appropriate conduct. It holds true in 99% of the real life situations where it is relevant--but that does not mean that we can treat it rationalistically. As Objectivists, we have to maintain a dual focus on abstractions and perceptual concretes, retain the hierarchical context for our ideas, and integrate our conclusions with other knowledge.

Okay. Now I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the elaboration and explanation. However, I think what you're saying here, Dennis, is not that "rights begin at birth in 99% of the cases," but that "rights begin at viability in 99% of the cases." The 1% when they don't is when the mother's health or safety is threatened. In those cases, they don't begin at viability, because the mother has a right to kill her fetus even though it is already viable, in order to protect her own health and safety. That's your principle! It is not that rights begin at birth (except when the mother's health or safety is threatened). If your principle were that "rights begin at birth (except when the mother's health or safety were threatened)," it would mean that the mother did have a right to kill her fetus arbitrarily (except when her health or safety is threatened), which is not what you want to say at all, and which doesn't make sense in any case.

So, Rand's statement that "a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born" does mean that the mother has the right to kill her fetus arbitrarily at any point prior to its birth. Your disagreement lies with the content of Rand's statement, not with its interpretation. You disagree with her on the point at which rights are acquired, so your embarrassment would be with Rand's and ARI's position on abortion, not with its interpretation.

I also don't agree with your view of abstract principles -- which, if I understand you correctly, is that they are simply rules of thumb that do not necessarily apply in all cases. The purpose of a moral principle is to serve as a guide to action. Yes, it has to be based on concretes, but as a principle it must be absolute and exceptionless, if it is to serve its intended purpose. This is not to say that principles are not context dependent, but the context must be included in the principles either explicitly or by implication, such that within that context, they are absolute and exceptionless.

Objectivists agree that the government should only use force in retaliation, and, therefore, it should not control or regulate the sale of weapons. There�s another abstraction. Does that mean government should look the other way if someone parks a tank on their front lawn and keeps it pointed at your living room? Or if your neighbor enjoys experimenting with hydrogen bombs in his basement?

I wouldn't say that these examples are exceptions to the principle or circumscribe it. The examples you cite do constitute a threat of the initiation of physical force, and would fall under the NIOF principle.

Objectivists cannot simply justify actions on the basis of principles while ignoring the specific real world context.

Of course, but if they are properly formulated and understood, the principles are already context dependent and are themselves based on the real world. As I'm sure you would agree, it makes no sense to consider the context independent of the principle. In that case, the principle becomes irrelevant, and no longer serves as a guide to action.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/29, 5:35pm)

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/29, 7:55pm)

Post 61

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 12:52pm

How many times, Phil, have you accidentally conceived a clone child from ass-scratching?

Ted

Post 62

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 4:15pm

Fred Bartlett: "A=A. Copulation is a factual, if not intentional, attempt to achieve a "pregnancy.""

Not according to Objectivism.

According to Objectivism, sex is NOT solely an attempt to achieve a pregnancy. It's the natural means by which a person expresses one's romantic love for another person.

In other words, Ayn Rand held that reproduction was only one of the purposes of the human sexual capacity. The other is to concretize the deep spiritual value one feels for another person into material reality. That's why she considered a "platonic relationship" between two people who are in love (in the Objectivist sense) to be a monstrous contradiction.

Moreover, sex is an expression of a person's love of life and existence. With an appropriate partner, it's the healthy expression of an active, valuing, virile individual.

As a result, there must be methods for people to have sex without causing pregnancy. And in the cases whether those methods fail, abortion must be an available alternative.

Post 63

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 5:51pm

That's a beautiful sentiment, Jon. And according to Objectivism, the purpose of semen is to identify rape suspects? (That's irony.)

There are no facts according to Objectivism, just facts of reality, convenient or not, and Objectivist theories, concepts and interpretations, hopefully based upon facts and natural values. Whatever the Objectivist theory of romantic love and sexual attraction is, that our bodies do their darndest to produce children when we have sexual intercourse is an undeniable fact.

Ted

Post 64

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 6:30pm

Can't argue with this, Ted:

Whatever the Objectivist theory of romantic love and sexual attraction is, that our bodies do their darndest to produce children when we have sexual intercourse is an undeniable fact.

Except for this undeniable fact:

Consciousness trumps the biologically automatic.

I eagerly await your retort.

Post 65

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 6:37pm

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

And House is on.

Ted

Post 66

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 7:35pm

Jon Trager wrote an excellent response to Fred Bartlett, but I'd like to add a word or two. Fred wrote,

Copulation is a factual, if not intentional, attempt to achieve a "pregnancy."

There is no such thing as a factual attempt that is unintentional. An unintentional attempt is an oxymoron. An attempt is by definition an intentional act. If I am attempting to drive safely, but have an accident, it makes no sense to say that I was attempting "factually" to have an accident. "In fact," I was attempting to avoid one. Similarly, if a woman is having sex while using some form of contraception, she is "in fact" attempting to avoid a pregnancy, not to achieve one.

A "pregnancy" is a factual, if not intentional, attempt to achieve a new life. The "intentional' qualifiers that sometimes slip into the analysis of this issue are irrational attempts to wipe those facts out of existence in support of our whims.

"We didn't want kids." doesn't change the facts of the Universe as it is.

Neither does the fact that one can avoid having them by aborting any unwanted pregnancies. Is it your view that abortion, even in the first trimester, is a violation of the embryo's "rights"?

"I pulled out" doesn't change the facts of the Universe as it is. This one is just ridiculous.

"The condom failed" doesn't change the facts. It is our responsibility to know that condoms sometimes fail.

"I was on the pill" doesn't change the facts.

"My vasectomy failed" doesn't change the facts either. It is our responsibility to know that vasectomies sometimes fail.

Of course, none of these things changes any "facts," your point being . . .?

Our Holy intentions be damned, the universe is what it is. A=A. Pulling out/condoms/pill/vasectomies are not 100% effective at shielding our deliberate acts from the factual consequences.

Which is why the right to abortion is so important and so necessary.

- Bill

Post 67

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 3:06am

Bill,

Thank you for clarifying that, in your view, principles are "absolute and exceptionless." As is so often the case, our fundamental disagreement is really metaphysical/epistemological. It is only tangentially related to abortion.

Your quote:

I also don't agree with your view of abstract principles -- which, if I understand you correctly, is that they are simply rules of thumb that do not necessarily apply in all cases. The purpose of a moral principle is to serve as a guide to action. Yes, it has to be based on concretes, but as a principle it must be absolute and exceptionless, if it is to serve its intended purpose. This is not to say that principles are not context dependent, but the context must be included in the principles either explicitly or by implication, such that within that context, they are absolute and exceptionless.

I must confess I find your wording utterly confounding. It is as though you want to sound like you grasp the significance of context when in fact you do not. No, I do not view principles as 'rules of thumb.' I regard them as abstractions which, to be applied, must involve consideration of the factual context. Appreciating the importance of the specific context is (very often) exception-making. Principles are not intended to be utilized while your brain is on idle.

Two quotes from Peikoff:

"Leaving aside the claims of children on their parents, no person by the mere fact of his existence or needs has a claim on the assets of others..." (OPAR, p. 287)

Hmmmm. Looks like an exception to a principle based on context.

"

Lying is absolutely wrong--under certain conditions. It is wrong when a man does it to obtain a value...[But there are situations where it is moral to lie even though doing so does not represent a refusal to serve the ends of evil.] For example, lying is necessary and proper in certain cases to protect one's privacy from snoopers. An analysis covering such detail belongs, however, in a treatise on ethics...The proper approach is to recognize that virtues are broad abstractions which one must apply to concrete situations by a process of thought..." (OPAR, p. 278)

Uh-oh! Damn the complexity of the real world! Another example of an exception dictated by context!

Now let me fully understand the implications of your position (which, incidentally, I believe Rand would find appalling in the extreme). "Rights begin at birth" is absolute and exceptionless. So if the mother is a psychotic sadist and wants to pummel the embryo/fetus in her belly on a daily basis and listen to its sounds of anguish, she has complete freedom to do so. If she wants to take thalidomide or other drugs in a deliberate effort to cause deformities--no problem from your perspective. She has full license to mangle or torture the growing life inside her in whatever manner she pleases with impunity right up until her water breaks. Why stop there? Why not allow her to crush the baby's skull as it's coming down the chute?

In my view, the mother would be criminally liable for such deliberate and/or irresponsible conduct. As long as she is implicitly accepting the maternal role by carrying the child, she is legally obligated to nourish that life and protect its health. None of the behaviors I just described are legal extensions of her right to control her own body, which is the absolute, fundamental underlying principle justifying abortion. But if your "absolute" is "rights begin at birth" (a derivative, less fundamental principle), what legal recourse do you have to suggest she cannot treat that 'thing' inside her in any way she pleases?

Your supposed 'elucidation' of my position is utterly incoherent, so I will restate it here. In the usual biological scenario, "rights begin at birth" is a perfectly adequate way of describing the legal status of the fetus or baby. There is no reason to invoke the principle of viability. However, if the mother becomes depressed or anxious or has other reasons to rid herself of a late-term fetus, a more fundamental principle--the mother's right to control her own body--comes into play. That principle--which certainly is an absolute--defines her freedom of action in that context. She can rid herself of the fetus, but only in a way that preserves the nascent capacity of the unborn life to survive on its own. If there is a conflict between fetal viability and the mother's health or safety, the mother's interests prevail because she is an independent living entity and the child has not yet achieved that stature.

Your "absolute" principle of "rights begin at birth" is derivative and not fundamental. Insisting that it be treated as an absolute leads to rationalistic insanity. I am sure you are unaware of just how utterly ridiculous and inhumane your position sounds. That's why I suggested projecting making such a statement on national television. Since that didn't work. I am spelling it out for you. Your position comes across like total lunacy.

I cited the "right to bear arms" as another example of the importance of maintaining a dual focus on abstract principle and concrete application, and you responded by saying that the scenarios I described would be prohibited because they both constituted "assault" or threats of violence. So your position would be that gun ownership (or legal conduct in general) should be restricted by anything that others regard as a threat? If that is your "absolute" principle, I presume you would allow the police to lock up men with loud voices and hot tempers but have no general restrictions on the commercial sale of assault rifles, machine guns or AK 47s.

I certainly agree that "assault" should be against the law. The legal dictionary defines "assault" as the crime or tort of threatening or attempting to inflict immediate offensive physical contact or bodily harm that one has the present ability to inflict and that puts the victim in fear of such harm or contact. Clearly, however, the kind of explicit threat which constitutes an assault is a much narrower category than that of a "threat."

It would simply not be possible for the government to intervene each and every time there was an apparent threat to use force. Only those situations which amounted to the de facto initiation of force would justify intervention or retaliation--which is why assault (like any abstract principle) also requires a dual focus on concretes, and the application to specific situations necessarily involves exception-making. Your 'absolute' principle would get people incarcerated for aggressive fist-pounding.

The freedoms of press, speech and assembly, the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to trial by jury--all of the rights delineated in the Bill of Rights--all must admit of various exceptions and conditions. Under your system of "absolute, exceptionless" rights, the freedom of the press would be extended to allow the revealing of secrets vital to national security, the right to a fair trial would be extended to enemy combatants and foreign dictators, and road owners could legally deny egress to other property owners in a given neighborhood.

As is so often the case, a concrete ethical/political issue has unearthed a much more fundamental difference on the deeper level of metaphysics and epistemology. And that would be fine, except for the fact you will no doubt continue to argue as an Objectivist instead of a Platonist. It would be so much better for everyone if we could simply acknowledge the fundamentality of the disagreement and move on. But that never happens, which is why these noxious threads end up being a total waste of everyone's time and energy.

Abandon hope for the future of Objectivism, all ye who enter here.

Post 68

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 3:16am

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.

Exactly in keeping with this, science made discoveries in which to command nature, rather than allowing nature to command us.

Go.

(A single evening of House's biting cynicism is enough to last me a year! Ugh! Heroes is better.)

Post 69

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 6:19am

Jon:

According to Objectivism, sex is NOT solely an attempt to achieve a pregnancy.

"Solely" is not nearly the issue. Who claimed 'solely?' Let's go find him and kick his clueless ass. That sex is something else as well does not erase the fact of what it is independent of our Holy intentions, and what it is as well is a factual, if not intentional, attempt to achieve a pregnancy.   An irrational wish to 'wish' sex into 'solely' or even 'soul-ly' exclusively something else because it can and should be as well regarded as something else on a higher plane of thought is, to me, very un-Randian.

Although, is it randy, in an Auston Powers kind of way.    Oh, BE-have.

That we can and do rut like animals does not make us animals, because we can also bring great lofty philosophical meaning to our actions. But the meaning/intentions we bring to the event do not erase the biological facts, and in fact, until sexual organs are 99.99999% effectively sterilized at birth, sex becomes effectively purely recreational, and procreation becomes the sole domain of State Plant #308, we can't wish the biological facts of our own procreation out of existence, as if we didn't share those characteristics with animals.

No, I think this is exactly what it looks like. An attempt at a personal lifestyle rationalization around a contradiction.

We live as humans in the universe as it is, as we are, and as we are is as a species imperfectly able to 100% eliminate the consequence of life as a result of our drive to enjoy sex.

It doesn't matter what we intend.   We can intend to live as a species that has 100% control over our deliberate contraceptive efforts, that doesn't change the facts if in fact we are not 100% effective at that.    The responsibility for even those 0.03% failures lies with us, not our victims, whom we factually invite through our actions, no matter what our ignorance of contraception is.   If contraception fails in the universe as it is, it can fail in the universe as it is, because it has failed in the universe as it is.

I sure as Hell am not arguing against 'sex'. I am arguing that we can't shed our responsibility for the objective consequences of our actions, which are not shaded in the least by our Holy intentions.

All of the great romantic concepts of sex as it should be (i.e, the definition of 'romantic') expressed by Rand are totally unaffected by the fact of what it is as well, in the universe as it is.

Can you really imagine any of her heroic characters, upon learning that their actions had resulted in a life, claiming, "Sorry, that was not my Holy intention, so it cannot exist in the universe as it is. This life, as it is, and for as long as it lives, lives at the whim of my entertainment/convenience."   Or, would they rationalize, through their ignorance? "Well, life isn't really life until it can solve the NYT crossword puzzle, or somesuch. Until then, it is the crawling meat bag side effect of my personal fulfillment."

In so doing -- in rationalizing 'viability' or 'sentience' or 'intelligence' to divine life from what it actually is in the Universe as it is, even if it is as well much more -- an unfurling DNA process that proceeds continuously and both precedes and follows birth until death -- objectivists admit a tiny crack into the universe through which the mob can crash to take what it wants on any whim whatsoever.     The ultimate rationalization for resolving this perceived conflict in Rand's world is the right of the strong to defend its life from its conflict with the weak, in spite of the contradiction that the conflict arose solely as a consequence of the actions of the strong, 100% and irrefutably so. It does so because it can be judge, jury, and executioner, enabled only by a temporal bias: those here and now are able to run roughshod over those newly invited yet unable to speak/defend themselves. The strong over the weak, with impunity, based on nothing so much as brute force with a ribbon, but not the ultimate strong over the weak. The ultimate strong over the weak is Marx's State over any one of us, and in admitting just this one tiny little glaring contradiction into Rand's philosphical basis, she fails to stand up against that which she otherwise abhors.    The ultimate innocent individual, tabla rasa complete, immolated by those who come into existence before them and who are responsible for the conflict.

This is not to say that we are nothing but cold unfurling DNA process.   I don't want to step on anyone's religious beliefs of what we are and can be and should be.    But in the universe as it is, we are objectively unfurling DNA process, and that process is objectively continuous from conception to death.     All that we can and should and might be, whatever that universe of possibilities is, depends upon that unfurling DNA process as a prerequisite, and not the other way around.    To steal that pre-requisite from another life, once factually invited, is and should be regarded as inhuman, an abomination, and, in the context of Rands objectivist philosophy, a glaring contradiction, as well as a lost opportunity to declare the basis of the Tribe's claim on all of our lives philisophically invalid.

regards,
Fred

Post 70

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 6:21am

Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.
Perfect quote on the topic of makin' bacon.

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/30, 6:28am)

(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 5/30, 6:29am)

Post 71

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 7:45am

Michael:

If abortion is murder, then is a miscarriage manslaughter?
If I get to vote, I'd vote no.   Abortion is a deliberate act by an other.   Miscarriage is a failure of a DNA process to proceed to completion.   If lessor manslaughter charges are deliverable, then to what actor? Is any failure to miraculously live(redundant) until 76.8 years manslaughter? If so, then the universe has a drawer full of these parking tickets, forever unpaid. They are moot.   (I took that to mean an actual miscarriage, not an induced miscarriage, which is an abortion.)

I'd also regard abortion as a consequence of rape to be the responsibility of the rapist.   (That's r-a-p-i-s-t, Mr. Connery not "Therapist")

I'd also regard actual medical crisis/conflict, ie, as judged by a doctor in some hypothetical actual life threatening scenario "I can save the child or the mother but not both" to be a mother's pick, and in the case of a mother unconscious or unable to decide, a decision for whoever she has entrusted with that decision, and if nobody, then the doctor making the decision.    EMTs might have to make similar decisions all the time, individuals can't be responsible for not being able to do the impossible, they can only do their best to preserve life.

But, none of that is anything like 'abortion as not even requiring a second thought as the ultimate backup contraception,' delivered as casually as if by drive-in window at McDonalds, which is the current hurdle.

Abortion is not logically contraception; conception has already occured before an abortion is possible.

As well, scratching our arse, masturbation(damn, I had to say it), and picking our nose are not examples of murder.   I could stare at those cells for a billion years, and never once expect a life to result as a consequence of those actions. A sperm is a cell, one of several billions. An egg is a cell, even though one of few.

But, the universe as it is has conspired that human sperm and egg, once introduced by means of a factual act of invitation, can sometimes(rarely actually)result in the beginning of a process that itself defines the foundation of all life, the unfurling of a DNA process. That process objectively begins at conception, proceeds past bith, and continues until death.    It is a factually, if not intentionally, invited process. My assertion/belief is, the responsibility for the existence of that life/process is squarely on the shoulders of those who factually invited it.   But, I could never argue for a state imposed/point of a gun enforcement of that belief, or the consequences of that belief. They are mine.

regards,
Fred

Post 72

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 10:27am

My assertion/belief is, the responsibility for the existence of that life/process is squarely on the shoulders of those who factually invited it. But, I could never argue for a state imposed/point of a gun enforcement of that belief, or the consequences of that belief. They are mine.

At least he's honest enough to acknowledge it's merely a belief, not a knowing...

Post 73

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 1:16pm

Steve wrote: "This conversation, as with all the others concerning abortion on this site, ends up being not about abortion, and instead about dreaded responsibility and obligation. Because of this I want to offer a possibility: since we now have vastly superior medical technology than did Miss Rand�s generation, could it be argued that a woman after six or seven months of pregnancy is aware of the pregnancy and has accepted it?"

I believe it could be argued.

A woman may capriciously decide to have sex without protection and end up pregnant even though she didn't want to. If so, that could be condemned as irrational and immoral.

Now, if she decides to have an abortion as soon as she finds out she is pregnant (within the first trimester), her decision to have an abortion right away can at least be called responsible in this context. (She has taken the responsibility to correct her wrong doing). I don't believe there should be any law against an abortion in the first trimester.

But, if she decides to wait until the fetus is "viable", which is usually considered at least past 24 weeks (and which it can't be argued that she didn't know she was pregnant), I believe at this point she has implicitly taken full responsibility and should continue to bear the child until full-term, barring no medical problems exist.

For her to destroy the fetus after this stage is tantamount to a woman who gives birth and then decides she wants to give up the child for adoption, but instead of being responsible and seeking out the correct avenue to do this, she just leaves her newborn on the street corner.

When you explicitly accept responsibility for a "viable" human (and you do this by not getting an abortion in the first trimester if you didn't want to get pregnant) you do have a "duty" (in the sense of responsibility) to take the appropriate measures to ensure the safety of that person.

Just as a parent has the "duty" of caring for their children and protecting them from harm.

Anything less is irrational and immoral.

Yes, rights come with responsibilities and after all, rights are there to protect what? RATIONALITY.

Post 74

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 1:50pm

Fred, rather than respond point by point to your rambling posts, I'll just respond to what I think is the essential issue.

Fred: "An irrational wish to 'wish' sex into 'solely' or even 'soul-ly' exclusively something else because it can and should be as well regarded as something else on a higher plane of thought is, to me, very un-Randian."

Fred, I'm not "wishing". Contrary to what you and Ted have said, I was talking about what sex is metaphysically among human beings, not merely what is should be. It is the human capacity for experiencing one's love of life and values with a partner worthy of sharing such an expression. That's the pyschological role of man's sexual nature, which is as real as its biological role.

The idea that the psychological value of sex is part of a higher reality makes it sound like some kind of New Age garbage. Regardless, Objectivism doesn't accept the notion of "higher planes of thought." It defends one integrated reality made up of the material and the spiritual (or existence and consciousness).

Post 75

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 2:21pm

Jon:

That's the pyschological role of man's sexual nature, which is as real as its biological role.

I understand that, even while rambling.

What I don't understand is how any Objectivist could actually believe that the reality of the psychological role wiped the biological role out of existence.

To me, any attempt at that would be Objectivism on its ear.

regards,
Fred

Post 76

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 2:53pm

Fred: "What I don't understand is how any Objectivist could actually believe that the reality of the psychological role wiped the biological role out of existence."

Well, I confess I don't know what you mean. Clearly, the biological role still exists. But pregnancy doesn't have to be the purpose of sexual intercourse for rational individuals--or their "factual attempt." Only conscious beings can "attempt" something, and as Bill said, you can't "attempt" something unintentionally. If you intend to have sex only for the mental/physical experience and not for prengnancy (which as I explained earlier is proper with an appropriate partner), then there's no "attempt," in the correct sense of the term, to achieve pregnancy.

Post 77

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 2:57pm

Jon:

As a result, there must be methods for people to have sex without causing pregnancy. And in the cases whether those methods fail, abortion must be an available alternative.

I was talking about what sex is metaphysically among human beings, not merely what is should be. It is the human capacity for experiencing one's love of life and values with a partner worthy of sharing such an expression. That's the pyschological role of man's sexual nature, which is as real as its biological role.

Yes, that is what you said. Because of Rand's romantic (ie, what should be) definition of the role of sex in healthy individuals, etc., which we can all agree is as real as rain, .... the universe must be one in which there are methods for people to have sex without causing pregnancy.

Well, in fact it is, but we're not talking about those. We are talking about those that result in conception/pregnancy and lead to the issue of abortion.

"And in the cases where those methods fail, abortion must be an available alternative."

I don't mean to ramble, but all I see is naked assertion, and it isn't sexy. Where's the beef?

The "cases where those methods fail" are the responsibility of those that relied upon them and/or misapplied them.   The consequences -- invitation to life to another -- are facts of the universe as it is, not as we would intend it/wish it to be.

Sperm+egg, no matter how introduced can lead to pregancy can lead to life. The responsibility for those chain of events is squarely on the perps, the adults in the room, no matter what they wish.   All of this nonsense about a fetus placing demands upon the lives of others is total nonsense. I've never heard of a fetus doing any such thing.    A fetus doesn't call ahead and ask for or demand reservations.   The inviters are not "obliged" to do anything other than not kill it once invited through their own actions.

Yes, a fetus crimps our style. Yes, a fetus makes grad school a bitch. Yes, a fetus makes us fat.   Yes, a fetus can make us poor.   Yes, yes, yes, all true. No shit. And, we live in a universe where copulation and even near copulation, plus imperfect contraception can lead to pregancy can lead to fetus can lead to baby can lead to all of the above unfortunate inconvenciences, unwanted drag on our precious resumes.    Those conseqeunces are our responsibility in this universe as it is. The 'out' of terminating inconvenient 'dependents'/innocent lives as a fix to our little self-imposed dilemmas is exactly the license Durkheim's God 'Society', aka Marx's State, the biggest beast in the jungle, needs to run roughshod over us all, for any whim whatsoever.

Maybe there is a tangential/rambling legal liability issue. If a conctraceptive manufacture markets a product and claims it to be 100.000000% effective no matter how used, and it is used, and it fails, then I would say that there is a liability issue in that consequences-less universe we imagine should exist to prop us up when we literally f'up.

But, such a manufacturer would have to be a total idiot, as would any idiot who would believe them, and damned, aint it those folks who are having all the kids these days?

regards,
Fred

Post 78

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 3:22pm

Jon:

Only conscious beings can "attempt" something, and as Bill said, you can't "attempt" something unintentionally. If you intend to have sex only for the mental/physical experience and not for prengnancy (which as I explained earlier is proper with an appropriate partner), then there's no "attempt," in the correct sense of the term, to achieve pregnancy.

You or I could intend to live in a universe where that is possible, but in fact -- especially in the cases we are discussing, which are, instances which result in a factual pregnancy leading to the issue of abortion -- no matter what we 'intend', the universe as it is will sometimes reward factual attempts at procreation with factual pregnancies. That is the way it works, in the universe as it is, our Holy intentions be damned.   That is exactly my point.   What you are saying is, "I intended to live in a universe where my factual attempts at procreation were influenced by my intentions.   I intended the facts of my actions to be shielded from reality by my Holy intentions."

I agree that there is no such thing as unintentional or inadvertent or accidental or non attempted copulation. Copulation must be attempted. The rest is just the universe as it is. I can't even begin to imagine how 'accidental copulation' would be possible.   I think it would require two oblivious people on a precise trajectory in a yet aroused state at a high rate of closing speed, but that's is as far as my imagination takes me down that road.

If we are 'intending' to have sex --in this universe, as it is, and as we are-- only in support of our 'psychological realities', and if we believe that by so doing that we wipe out of existence the biological facts and largely inevitible consequences of our actions, then we are in denial.   We are 'intending' to wish reality out of existence. We are 'intending' to imagine the universe and our action in it as something other than what it really is.   We are intending to attempt only copulation, and irrationally wishing that the universe, as it is, suspends itself of all consequences after we've lit up our Marlboros.

The absolute proof of that is the outcome which leads to the need to consider an abortion; ie, a factual pregnancy.

healthy sperm meets healthy egg at the right time and place is what is factually required to achieve a pregnancy. There is factual behavior which risks same.

We want what we want, and we squirm to avoid the universe as it is to rationalize getting what we want, and that squirmy rationalization includes terminating life by claiming that a fetus 'places demands' on anybody, which is patently absurd.   Our only obligation to an invited fetus, invited as a consequence of either our actions or sloppy understanding of faulty contraception or whatever, is to refrain from murdering it, and it doesn't even ask or demand that.

But by rationalizing it, Objectivists empower the tribe uber alles; 'others' over any individual, based only on the needs of the 'others' and the brute force ability of the 'others' to achieve what they want, based even on mere considerations of the convenience of others in the face of perceived conflict, when in fact, that conflict is the direct responsibility of the 'others.'

"Individual" rights?   Maybe, someday, if they ever get this one right. As it is now, there is a gaping hole in the foundation.

regards,
Fred

Post 79

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 4:16pm