RoR: Forum

"There's already tremendous pressure on young people to be sexually active," [Wendy Wright of Concerned Women for America] said. "By having this drug available on store shelves next to the toothpaste and aspirin, it would just make it that much harder for women to resist sexual coercion."

“Sexual coersion” as a euphemism for sexual activity on terms other than theirs. Cute.

Post 1

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:08am

This is not just typical of Bush Jr- but of American culture in general.

Remember back in 1990? There was the so-called abortion drug called "RU 486". It can be used up until 9 weeks of pregnancy. It was immediately accepted in France, but rejected in the US. Actually, I think it still is.

Bush Snr was in power at that time. I think Bush Snr is supposed to be more of an atheist, so you can't really blame it on him. It is the endemic puritan culture that is alive and well in the states still today that is doing it!!!

Post 2

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 5:58am

I really hate it when the government tries to get in the way of technological advancement and personal responsibility. Until they provide failproof birth control, abortion and morning after pills should be freely available. I've had quite enough of the religious right. I hope this product will be available soon in a vending machine near you.

Post 3

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:40am

I doubt it, except that you are fit to walk to France to get your pills and smuggle them back in (or do it in Mexico, where Abortion can be done around each corner by some "specialist").
If you summarize all propositions this administration has issued regarding Birth-control, you will see that abortion by pill or in the hands of individuals is something they detest.
Instead they preach virginity until you are married (hell, they even outlawed preservatives in some areas) and you justs have to look at US policy in Africa (which is doubious to say the least) to see the way this administration likes to infringe on your rights. They think that faith and virginity are a better way to prevent pregnancy in advance and if it fails, you have to take responsibility for the baby you have. There is no other choice left, because they believe that abortion and thus killing "life" is something wickedly anti-christian/anti-american. (These two are getting mixed around lately)

However, there is one thing that always bothered me with birth-control. Is killing of innocent life allowed, when it comes distinguishable that it is life (like in the 4th month of pregnancy?)? This is difficult because the pregnancy is in most cases a subject of choice and you should be able to bear the consequences resulting from it.
But then there are other cases like rape and such, who call for abortion and truly legitimate them. And of course, the prospect of supplying and taking properly care of a children, which also speaks for abortion, if the mother/family cannot provide it.

Still, government should not infringe on the right of a woman's decision to abort her child, because she won't make it an easy choice for herself. Last but not least, it is in the private aspect of the woman's life that government will intrude and this should be a no-no for all freedom-loving individuals.

Post 4

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 12:05pm

Sorry to say, but one of the great unanswered questions of Objectivism is when life begins. If man is defined by his brain activity and reason, then that begins at 3 months. The ARI-folkken think that it begins at some mystical moment called "birth", whereas the TOC people think that Roe v. Wade is a good indication of when it is proper to start dividing the line between life and non-life.

We have to ask, then: when does a fetus take ownership and responsibility for itself?

If we are to say that a mother can terminate a fetus as long as it resides in her body, are we to say that she can do so if the life of the newborn depends on living in her house and being sustained from her money?

Regardless, just as in the death-penalty argument posted above, can we afford to take the chance that we are terminating legitimate life, innocent life, when philosophy has no properly answered the question?

Post 5

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:11pm

Steven Druckenmiller writes:

The ARI-folkken think that it begins at some mystical moment called "birth", whereas the TOC people think that Roe v. Wade is a good indication of when it is proper to start dividing the line between life and non-life.

Birth is a mystical moment?

How does one "start dividing the line" between life and non-life? What could that possibly even mean?

Someone actually sanctioned such illogicality?

Post 6

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 1:16pm

Steven,

You wrote: ��one of the great unanswered questions of Objectivism��
Rand did answer that question: At birth.

And birth is not �some mystical moment�, but an objective thing that no one can argue confusion about when it has or hasn�t occurred.

You wrote: �If man is defined by his brain activity and reason, then that begins at 3 months.�
Well, yes it does. I have a four month old and she appears to be integrating sensual data already, at least in a rote way. Not as well as my dog, but she�s doing it.

You ask: �Regardless, just as in the death-penalty argument posted above, can we afford to take the chance that we are terminating legitimate life, innocent life�?�

That�s why Roe v. Wade represents a fair rule for this issue. No restrictions at first, with larger reasons required for abortion as birth is approached.

The wisdom of its having been legislated from the bench instead of the legislature and the specifics of its restrictions and their timing are debatable, but I hold that something like Roe v. Wade is proper.

Welcome to SOLO.

Jon

Post 7

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 2:34pm

Well, if birth is a specific moment, then we would have to discuss what distinguishs babys that are born in the eighth month or even in the tenth month, how are they regarded? What if the doctor has to get the child even earlier and then nurtur it in a special facility?

I think birth is a worse ratio, because we know that the procedure and the outcome of being pregnant and to pretend that it is no life-in-potentia before, is just foolish and unreasonable.
However, it is the question how we react with that knowledge and I don't see any chance that a certain restriction law could help.
What are serious circumstances that allow an aboration or prohibit it?
Each situation and enviroment is almost singular and cannot easily be compared with others (this is a tragedy in human individualism or its best moment).

So, my question is, whether we can hold all innocent human life (even as a foetus) as too precious to lose, or if we can give the sole decision to a any woman regardless of her mental/physical state?

This is a tough question and really just about now don't know, but I'd try it with the mother-theorem, because I don't think that any mother could decide something as grave as abortion on the spur of a moment.

Post 8

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:36pm

Max: �Well, if birth is a specific moment, then we would have to discuss what distinguishs babys that are born in the eighth month or even in the tenth month, how are they regarded?�

In the context of the question of bornedness, we regard them the same way that we distinguish babies born during the week from the ones born on the weekend: As indistinguishable.

Regarding, �pretend that it is no life-in-potentia before�
That is a valid criticism of an absolutist, before/after birth distinction. It is not a valid criticism of Roe v. Wade-type rules, which take account of increasing potential and demand larger justifications through time.

Jon

Post 9

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 3:39pm

Concerning George Bush Snr, just found this in a newspaper article:

"Entering a prayer breakfast of Republican fundamentalist Christians, George HW Bush is supposed to have said: "I'm the only person in this room that's only been born once."

You see. The abortion pill was still banned, even though he was not a born-again religious fundamentalist like his son!!!

It's a cultural thing.

Post 10

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 8:14pm

Rick

You are correct in criticizing me, I meant to say that "For some odd reason, there is meaning attached, for ARI, to birth, although there is no rational reason for their to be so. They treat birth as the mystical moment when a fetus becomes a being with rights"

The question here is, why is that so? I know Rand said that it was, she just never really explained it, as far as I can tell.

Thanks for your greeting, M. Letendre.
I understand that Rand answered it, but, is the ABILITY to be born the necessary criteria? That is, if I can deliver a living being, with the aid of technology, in the 5 month of gestation, is that the same as the 9th? And does D&X or D&E count, since the child is partly along the birth canal? Is it that first breath that counts, or when the feet leave the mother?

My point is that attributing the beginning of life to birth was, and is, an arbitrary line. There is no reason to suggest that something seconds away from being born has no rights, whereas something that is born does. What's the difference?

I hold that when the senses and brain activity begin, that is when a man is distinct from beast, when there epistemological necessities come into being. If a fetus has senses and brain activity, I think that's evidence enough for concept-formation, which is what distinguishes man from the animals.

Post 11

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:31pm

I am still grappling with this issue. I am violently opposed to anyone telling me what I can and cannot do with my body, and used to say that regardless of the fetus' size or age, it was the mother's right to do as she saw fit. However, my thinking has changed slightly.

I am still absolutely adamant that a woman should make the choices for her body; however, as with anything else, that comes with a responsibility clause.

I have a great deal of difficulty with Rand's assertion that as long as it is inside the mother, it is her decision to make. If said woman has not yet made up her mind whether or not to have a baby as it's coming out of her womb, she has some seriously muddy thinking (and morals).

The line for me, then, has become the point at which a fetus could survive outside the womb. It is then, in my eyes, a fully developed human being.

If a woman definitively knows she does not want a child, she should make arrangements to terminate the pregnancy the moment she is aware of it. Anything less, to me, is utterly irresponsible. If she doesn't know whether or not she wants one, she better have some pretty effective birth control methods in place until she figures it out.

(I'm sure I will now hear the stories of the women who "didn't know they were pregnant," but I find it hard to believe that a woman could miss her menses for six or seven months and not be slightly curious as to why.)

HOWEVER, I still struggle with the legality of making abortion at any point in the pregnancy illegal. That "line" specified above is a moral one for me. That of course begs the question, is the fully developed human being, though inside the womb, then entitled to rights?

Legally, the woman is the property owner. The fetus is a parasite. Argh.

Post 12

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 9:58pm

The questions to answer are:

At what exact point does an individual's right to life begin, and why?

Why is it immoral to kill a baby immediately after birth and not an hour before when it was in the womb?

I too have never heard a satisfying philosophical answer to this question. Nonetheless, I have no qualms about abortion, and would encourage my partner to have one at this point in my life. I would stand behind her decision either way, though, as the choice is ultimately hers alone.

Post 13

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:13pm

Steven,

The advancing development and eventual natural viability of fetuses are reasons for increasing restrictions on later abortions. As I wrote earlier, the complex issues involved regarding those restrictions and their timing are debatable. However, I am ill educated in the details of the science and law involved and unmotivated to debate them now. Sorry to crap out on you. There are a lot of people here, so maybe someone else will be interested.

Jon

Post 14

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:24pm

Or I could be interested for a little while.

Jennifer, I agree with your moral conclusion and also think that it should be law. Viability must mean �natural� viability, though. Otherwise, we�ll reach a day when each and every sperm cell residing in my testicles at this moment is �viable.�

Even natural viability is slushy, so the law may just have to be set somewhere early enough to catch all possible cases of viability.

Jon

Post 15

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:28pm

The right to life derives from man's nature as a conceptual, volitional entity. As I understand it, the fetus' brain is "wired" for conceptual activity at about the beginning of the third trimester. Doesn't mean it *does* conceptualise, of course, but from that time it's set to go. I believe from that time it should be legally deemed to have the right to life. From that point, the fetus should be seen not as a parasite but an invited guest, whom the host does not have the right to kill.

This, if I recall, is also Tibor Machan's solution. He might like to comment.

Again, it's not a utopianly perfect solution, but I think it's the contextually best we're capable of at the moment.

Linz

Post 16

Thursday, January 20, 2005 - 10:53pm

Jon, you posed an excellent question re viability, and Linz, you answered it quite satisfactorily.

I had this conversation recently, and drew the same conclusions. But I found myself stumbling in parts of my reasoning as I tried to work it out afterward, which is why I've revisited my thoughts here.

An invited guest -- you know, I have been trying to come up with a new metaphor for the fetus at that point, because parasite wasn't quite right. "Invited guest" is exactly it -- it ties back to my issue of a woman taking full responsibility for her actions at a certain point. (Did you hear the mental "clink" of that falling into place?) :)

Thanks for helping me to clear my thoughts, gentlemen.

Post 17

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 12:36am

M. Letendre

I do not think that it would be legitimate to call every sperm life (unless you're Monty Python)...however, an embryo, without any interference, would develop into a human being. However, as all of us Objectivists know, a potentiality is not an actuality.

Ms. Iannolo

Clearly, you cannot terminate something that is life, that would be tantamount to murder. However, it is also clear that we as a society have not answered this question yet, which is why I feel that Roe v. Wade, although made arbitrarily (the arbitrary can be correct), should answer the question best. At the same time, can the argument be made that, like the death penalty, until we can be sure, there should be a moratorium?

M. Perigo
You recognize that your solution is not perfect, at least you believe it not to be. Why? And why would you suggest something imperfect, acknowledge it as such, and hope that an evolutionary thought process would maybe change it one day? And by evolutionary, you say "at the moment" implying we may evolve a better solution later.

Post 18

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 1:17am

Steven�you write:

"M. Perigo
You recognize that your solution is not perfect, at least you believe it not to be. Why? And why would you suggest something imperfect, acknowledge it as such, and hope that an evolutionary thought process would maybe change it one day? And by evolutionary, you say 'at the moment' implying we may evolve a better solution later."

I'm not saying it's imperfect. I'm saying it's contextually perfect (there's no other way to be perfect, actually). It accords with our knowledge at the present time. Morality, my friend, is not a set of celestial verities revealed to us by Moses on the mountain-top ("Utopianly perfect"). That's the fallacy we Objectivists recognise as intrinsicism. It's the sort of nonsense that says never lie�even to a kidnapper seeking your children as to their whereabouts.

Your expectations, Steven, of morality, are intrinsicist ones. You want a series of edicts from On High that give you the answer, in advance, to every contingency for all time. If you come down to earth, you'll realise that you'll constantly have to figure out how to apply principles derived from previous contexts to new contexts. Horreurs!

Linz

(Edited by Lindsay Perigo on 1/21, 1:19am)

Post 19

Friday, January 21, 2005 - 3:04am