I'm really interested in where Objectivists stand on abortion.
Posted by Robbie53024 11 years, 2 months ago to Culture
What kind of rational argument do you Objectivists use for/against abortion?
- Navigation
- Hot
- New
- Recent Comments
- Activity Feed
- Marketplace
- Members Directory
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Regardless of birth control; no birth control is 100% effective, not even tubal ligation or vasectomy.
Again, why are you performing intercourse if you don't want to have, or at least are not prepared to have, a baby?
If that same woman exposed that same child to the same exposure to chemicals, the same medication, or failed to provide an adequate diet for the child six months after it was born, the government would certainly try to take the child away, and possibly punish the mother.
The sex organs' function is not pleasure; the function is to make more humans. It's pleasurable so we'll do that. An appeal to our animal brain, not our rational mind.
It's why all addictions exist and have not been bred out of the species.
What "right" does the host have to end the life of someone with a unique genetic code in the case where she just wants the endorphin release of the act whose purpose is the creation of a human?
A bulimic who binges and purges is considered to have an illness. Couldn't the same be said of someone who has sex and then aborts? After all, the purpose of eating is nourishing the body; the purpose of sex is perpetuating the species. The bulimic wants the pleasure of eating, without the functional results of the act, while a... I'll say "sex-addict" since khalling and others object to my using straight language... a sex-addict wants the pleasure of intercourse without the results of that act.
If it escapes the host, but develops downs syndrome, does it remain a "growth of tissue"? If it escapes the host but is otherwise imperfect, perhaps due to actions of the host, such as drinking or doing illicit drugs... does it remain just a "growth of tissue"?
might change their mind later?
Viability? That 'limit' keeps getting pushed back as medical science develops new tools to help a fetus survive outside the placenta at younger and younger 'ages.'
Fine... so long as THAT 'bright line' is legally updated regularly when the line moves.
As for 'sentient' and all the other stuff like it, there are a lot of fuzzy ideas kicking around that one.... EXISTENCE of some rudimentary nervous system in a fetus (or some part of one) does NOT 'prove' sentience or even 'the ability to feel pain.' So that whole path is strewn with the land mines of 'agreement'.... get enough people to agree with some 'definition' and a law springs into existence.
Unfortunately, too many people today equate Consensus with Truth and have enacted laws based on nothing more than Agreement on an issue. But again, if the goal is a new law, Consensus often BECOMES the 'measure.'
Very Un-Objectivist, I think.
I asked a question as to whether one who enters into a voluntary action, which they understand can result in a pregnancy, can then claim to have been "enslaved."
I'm no neurophysician/scientist, nor are most women who must answer the morality of any decision, so that cannot be a basis of morality.
But let's just say that I found such a physician/scientist and they state: 1) Consciousness/awareness begins at some point prior to natural birth, or 2) Consciousness/awareness does not begin until 2 weeks post birth. What are your answers in these 2 situations.
And please stop the smokescreen of other issues that are irrelevant to the discussion.
Where would you stop the force? Should her doctor or the state force her to consume a diet that is 'good' for the fetus? If she has triple fetuses, yet at some point two of the fetuses begin to absorb the weaker of the three, should the doctor enforce some form of intervention? If the mother has placental displacement requiring the mother to have bed rest till term, should the doctor or the state force her to spend the next 6 or 7 months in bed?
My statement that a human being is defined as a live, conscious, aware, and self determining entity with all natural rights including not being forced to do anything. As to the exact moment of consciousness and awareness and ability to self determine, you need to ask a neurophysician/scientist. I've already stated that above.
A rational objective individual has no duty nor obligation to anyone or anything other than themselves and their own happiness. A=A and existence=existence.
There's simply nothing else to comment on from an Objectivist rational standpoint.
At what point does the entity growing in a woman's womb become it's own person? Is it only after passing through the birth canal? If so, what made that passageway or time period so magical so as to cause the entity to change from just 10 minutes before? If so, that timing seems rather arbitrary to me.
If you insist that that is the criteria, then how would you characterize an entity removed by caesarian section early? But for an unnatural act, the entity would still have been in the woman's body. Does the mere location (inside vs. outside) dictate? If so, then location seems very arbitrary to me, and I thought we didn't allow arbitrariness.
These are critical questions of a moral code, wouldn't you agree?
How is the woman acting irresponsibly in terminating a unwanted pregnancy? You cannot, on the one hand, say that the pregnant woman who has great risk of loss of life has the "right" to terminate the pregnancy, and on the other morally compel a woman at less risk to carry to term.
I own myself. Agreed. When does that commence? How do you identify "oneself?"
Slavery must be an involuntary situation. So, if I commit to a consensual act that I know can result in a pregnancy, is that an involuntary act? Can one voluntarily enslave oneself?
Let's keep the rape/incest out of the discussion for now, as they (in my estimation) are easier issues to address morally.
It assumes that there is some "magic" that happens while the entity goes through the birth canal. Or, in the instance of caesarian birth, when the entity is extracted. But morally, is there any difference in the being one minute before it exits than one minute after?
The moral argument is this. I own myself. I cannot be forced to be a slave to another. If I give care that is my choice. I have taken this argument to the extreme in discussions of starvation or disaster, but I am my first consideration. I cannot be compelled to consider another life or potential life above my own.
If you don't want to post here, give me a link and I'll read previous posts.
I have my position, and am looking to understand how a non-religious person reasons this out.
So many here want to throw up a smoke screen, or present non-reasoned answers, or just not answer at all.
What kind of rational argument do you Objectivists use for/against abortion?
If you are willing, I'd like for you to discuss your thinking on the following (I'm going to leave the male out of the discussion for, while contributing the sperm, really has no direct involvement with the rest of the discussion other than from a cultural perspective, and that's not my interest here):
- The mother engages in a consensual act with no means of "protection" and becomes pregnant.
- The mother uses "protection" in a consensual act, but that fails.
- The growing mass of tissue before/after the point of "viability."
- Grave health implications to the mother.
- Grave health implications to the mother before/after viability.
Reasoning through those scenarios may help to crystalize your thoughts.
I have no problem taking the mother into account. She is typically not the one at risk, but that is not always true.
So, make your rational argument, I'm really looking to learn. Not some half-blown, knee-jerk argument about enslavement and consciousness as those don't hold water. At some point that growing mass of tissue reaches a state where, even though still growing and using resources from the mother, is capable of self sustainment, albeit with help (but so does a baby born naturally need help).
I reject such foolish arguments as "consciousness" as espoused by Z above because that would logically permit infanticide and I don't believe that any moral code (certainly not any that I would accept) would accept that.
As for slavery, how can that possibly be an argument here? Slavery is a voluntary act on the enslaver. In the case of two humans that voluntarily copulate which results in creating a fertilized ovum, there certainly cannot be "enslavement" as it is a willing action by both parties. Yet this is the majority of the instances where abortion occurs (rape/incest are separate issues and are morally wrong).
Your statement before states that only a conscious being can have rights, and that a baby cannot attain consciousness for some time after being born. Does that, then, morally justify infanticide up to some time period after birth? If so, when? And how do you determine the cut off point?
Load more comments...