| | Bill:
But the relevant meaning of "individual" here is an individual person, not individual piece of protoplasm, which is what a zygote is at the moment of conception. In any case, (some) Objectivists are quite aggressive in their definition of "individual person," which they define as a separate human being whose existence is created at the moment of birth. This is a direction that avoids "granting power to the mob" over the mother herself -- a direction that protects her individual rights from encroachment by the mob.
"At the moment of birth" as it is, is a much more concrete concept, an objective milestone. If that is the standard for 'individual', that is much less wisy-washy than '1st trimester,' which I think is a relatively arbitrary milestone.
There is a major milestone at conception, and there is a major milestone at birth. I didn't say 'concrete' because in fact, both 'conception' and 'birth' are a little blurry or else that would imply no reason for the thread title. Just as there can be a 'partially born' fetus/infant, there is a fertilized egg after conception and prior to implantation, that is not yet viable; IMO, taking a 'morning after pill' that prevents implantation is responsibly cancelling the deal before the deal is closed and is barely yet contraception, not abortion. What leaves the body is cells on the way to nowhere, not cells on the way to an individual. What a women yet does to her body to prohibit or reject hypothetical successful implantation of cells she is not even aware exist stops the clock before it has begun. What a women and doctor, ie, others do after implantation is not just to her body, it requires a targeted act of aggression, and is specifically aimed at a specific individual process on its way to becoming an individual. We just disagree on the existence of a temporal bias in evaluating that.
There are several million lessor milestones between conception and birth and several more million milestones after. I don't think there is any objective basis to focus on a lessor milestone than one of the above two. Conception/birth, as blurry as they might be in the details, are yet far more concrete milestones than any other.
I think culturally, the milestone used to be much more readily accepted as 'at birth,' but for whatever reason(or lack of reason), folks are just uncomfortable with the idea of terminating a life "minutes" from birth. I think because suddenly, the temporal bias is not so great as to be a shield from what it is we are actually doing.
But, we shouldn't be wishy-washy about this. If birth, then birth. If not, then conception. But for anyone to take up a position 'somewhere' in between is basically trying to push off the truth to far beyond some comfortable temporal bias, without changing the truth of the matter. It's like saying spatially, "I can't justify the obliteration of this individual practically in front of me, but if you do it down the street I'm fine with it."
"At Birth" is an entirely consistent point of view, a historical point of view, and a rational point of view. Almost/partially born? Well, if "almost/partially" born causes us any concern at all, then we're well into the realm of horshoes and handgrenades.
Woiceshyn is consistent, and Rand clearly equivocates in her statement. We wonder why? But then:
a] she was from an earlier generation,
b] she fled the Soviet meat wagon,
c] she tellingly named her first major novel "We the Living,"
d] she often condemned the worshippers of death in all their various forms.
e] she wasn't inhuman, just unGodly human.
(If ever there was a stronger 'pro-life', if not Pro-Life, advocate than Rand, it is hard to imagine.)
Yes, "Pro Choice" is a direction that avoids granting power to the mob--in the instance of failing to responsibly own ones' body and bring one's will to bear. Meaning, one intended that sex be purely recreational/psychological, yet failed to competently practice contraception. So, yes, it accrues benefits to a women's self interest, in the instance of her failure. But in the many more instances of her competent successes, it accrues costs to her self-interests, in that it does reinforce the tribalist/other's main contention, that individuals exist/have rights at the whim of others. As well, "Pro-Choice Until Age 21" would also be a direction that avoids granting power to the mob, and would protect parents from encroachment by the mob on their individual rights as parents.
I don't mean 'incompetent' in anything other than a factual way, as someone who has incompetently managed the concept of contraception in a failed attempt to convert their will into reality, and as a consequence, must consider an abortion. I could easily have been or be an incompetent in that regard, and if I was, I would in fact be an incompetent in that regard.
Do we assume that only the hypothetical existence of yet more incompetents are obliterated when an incompetent fails and exercises "Pro-Choice?" I don't think that is likely. So, not only existing non-incompetents (women who competently exert their will into existence by actually owning their bodies without the need to obliterate mere potential others), but future non-incompetents as well are immolated in the name of accruing benefits to incompetents. I can't believe Rand would advocate that easily.
Yet another torturous aside: I too quickly accepted the 3 in 4 natural miscarriage statistic. Those 3 out of 4 pregnant women who naturally miscarry do not then yet seek abortions. I'm sure if I limited by thought experiment to pregnant moms who have successfully made it to the point of considering an abortion, that 3 out of 4 is long gone from the sample set.
regards,
Fred
|
|
