Claudia,

Yes, contracts for carrying to full-term delivery seem fine to me. The contracts could be made whenever the mother learned she was pregnant, and that would be a long time before viability of the fetus was reached, at the present stage of medical science.

I'm not at all familiar with the law concerning abortions and the law of contracts in NZ, but I can mention a couple of things about these areas of law in the US. I do think it is to actual case law and statutory law and the reasons behind them that one needs to look for the full dimensions of moral thinking about such things.

Contracts for surrogate mothers and the cases that have arisen from them would seem to be a good guide for the possibilities and limitations of the kind of contracts you are suggesting. Perhaps someone here can tell us about the experience so far with contracts for surrogate mothers.

Concerning abortion law in the US (in my 1984 understanding), the US Supreme Court has barred the States from prohibiting abortion during the first trimester. By the end of that interval, the brain of the fetus is recognizable as a mammalian brain, but does not yet have the structural features of a primate brain. The lower brain of the human fetal brain at this stage has begun to have indications of neuronal maturity, although the higher brain at this stage has not. The fetus during the first trimester lacks an adequate neural foundation for minimal subjective experience.

The Court has allowed the States to proscribe elective abortions beginning with the second trimester. (Reader, please step in and correct me if I get any of this wrong.) Viability will be reached towards the end of this second trimester. In my State, a fetus judged to be viable must not be aborted unless it is medically necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. The same professional care must be given to the viable fetus as to any fetus intended to be born; if an abortion is needed to preserve the life or health of the mother, measures for life support must be available and utilized if there is any clearly visible evidence of viability. Violation of these requirements is a Class 2 felony, which is the level of voluntary manslaughter. Anyone intentionally taking the life of a premature infant aborted alive commits a Class 1 felony, which is the level of attempted murder and aggravated kidnapping.

I am unsure whether elective, non-therapeutic abortions in the second trimester yet prior to a reasonable medical certainty of viability is proscribed or only regulated under current law. Proscription in this interval would be squarely at odds with the theory concerning rights surrounding abortion that I have outlined in my previous posts on this thread. In practical effect, there is evidently no difference in possible outcomes, because physicians are simply unwilling to perform elective, non-therapeutic abortions in this interval anyway. Given that social circumstance, I'm not sure there is any reason to try to revise any off-the-mark law covering this interval.

Augmentation of the law with the power to enter into contracts of the sort you suggest would seem a good thing to me. We are presuming that such a legal power does not already exist. Perhaps someone here can set us fully sure on that.

Stephen

If an agreement were reached between the mother and an adoptive couple at the time of fetus viability, I suppose the next major arising from the situation is the adoptive couple's wish for the mother to carry the child to full term, to ensure a healthier baby. Do you think (I doubt it would be legal) that straight out value for value trade would be ethical? I personally think it would.

Ted,

The definition of viability I rely on includes the likelihood that the point of viability gets earlier as medical science and technology advance. Viability is reached when there is a reasonable chance of the fetus' "sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support" (Colautti v. Franklin 1978). The fact that zygotes might someday be artificially viable does not mean that anyone would have a moral duty or obligation to bring about their development into human infants.

As of the early 80s, when I was studying this issue, viability was usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) and in some cases as early as 24 weeks. (Perhaps someone here could update us on the point of viability in current practice.) The attending physician judges viability by considering the gestational age of the fetus, the approximate fetal weight, the woman's general health and nutrition, and the quality of the available medical facilities. The US Supreme Court has required that the statutory definitions of viability be flexible to allow the attending physician "the room he needs to make his best medical judgement" (Doe v. Bolton 1973).

Prior to the point of viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother cannot bring the development of the fetus forward without the service of the mother. After the the point of viability, they can. The preceding two sentences are only stating causal facts. As far as properly enforceable rights go, I say the situation is this:

Prior to viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother have no right to prevent termination of the pregnancy. They must not impress the mother into their service. They must pursue their projects in life without impressing anyone into their service.

After viability, wouldbe guardians not the mother have a limited right to require (and provide for) transfer of the fetus without harm. That proposition should be controversial. My conception of the limits of the right were never completed. My conception of the basis of any such right at all was as follows (as I expressed it in my 1984 Nomos essay "Innocent Threats and Abortion"):

Consider two persons presently incapable of interaction. Material liberty between two persons is the extent of what each can in fact do independently of the other. What A can do independently of B might very well be much greater or less than what B can do independently of A. In addition, the material liberty of each may vary over time. Nonetheless, there is always formal equality of liberty in the sense that each is always fully and only at liberty to do what he can do independently of the other.

There is a sense in which these persons could come to interact while preserving the full formal liberty of non-interaction, thus securing individual autonomy. They might affect each other only in ways that do not entail a loss of material liberty to either party. If we go further and assert that (except in defense of his own material liberty against others) it ought to be the case that each be capable of reducing only his own material liberty, then each is the bearer of a claim-right to full formal liberty.

When should a member of our species be accorded the rights a person has against another? What rights ought to be accorded between a human fetus (embro, blastocyst) and its mother? Pass over the idea that pregnant women have tacitly agreed (with anyone) to provide maternal care for potential persons that might arise within them. A more promising vantage point is this: The mother, like the fetus, is where she is because that is the world line of spacetime on which she came into being. Neither the mother nor the fetus is in breach of a duty to the other to refrain from coming to be there.

It is not possible to reduce the material liberty of the pre-viable fetus with respect to its mother. The extent of what the pre-viable fetus can do independently of the mother, even if aided by a new guardian, is nil.

Now suppose the time of viability has arrived. The mother, like the infant, is where she is because that is the world line on which she came into being. Neither a new guardian nor the mother is in breach of a duty to the other to avoid such a coincidence. Furthermore, the material liberty, with respect to its mother, of the viable infant aided by new guardians is now not zero. And it is at this stage possible for new guardians to conduct their guardianship without impressment of the mother into their service.

The original 1984 article lays out the implications of claim-rights in tort and criminal law in general. It goes on to discuss permissible harms of mutually innocent threats as well as their application in abortion contexts. If anyone would like a copy of this essay, simply contact me through the service of this site.

if they're smelly, ugly, boring and uncivilized.

Should children who have not moved out by 21 also be subject to euthanasia?

Children with spina bifida are not "viable" without intensive care much more burdensome than pregnancy itself. Are they thus disposable? [Ted Keer]

Yes. Raising such an infant must be a personal choice. If nobody, including the mother, is willing to shoulder the burden of a malformed or retarded infant, then I think there is a good case for euthanasia. This is where it clearly is killing but not from malice, from mercy. Thus not murder.

I appreciate the kind words. And I also like this:

"Eternity is yours and mine to contemplate and enjoy, as we so choose."

My first problem with viability is that it is a relative term that differs with our technological capability. What if we could conduct the entire pregnancy in-vitro, would not then all living zygotes become protected? The second is with its interpretation. Children with spina bifida are not "viable" without intensive care much more burdensome than pregnancy itself. Are they thus disposable?

I believe that you have some concept in mind by salience which is more developed than what I understand by the context of your post. If it is relevant and you want to expand, please do.

As for this, I strongly disagree:

"However, even if quickening were a point of great significance in the development of the fetus' brain---say it would suddenly have all the powers of detection and learning it has as of a week before full-term delivery---yet such an imagined quickening occurred before viability were reached, then, even then, it would remain a hands-off situation as far as proper legal prohibition of abortion goes."

I am indeed using quickening as a signpost - a plausible but far from conclusively demonstrated one - for the "sentient" stage. Given the full context of your post, your conclusion "even then, it would remain a hands-off situation as far as proper legal prohibition" is asserted, but I do not see where you support it within that post. Again, perhaps you could expound on the point. As it is worded, I get the impression that your last paragraph may imply that actual last week-abortions on demand are unobjectionable? I will also just assert that I disagree with the "humaneness" (I'd use humanity, but it sounds wrong) of that stance. Waiting a week to ship the kid to an adoption agency because the woman, after 8 & 3/4 months has decided she simply doesn't want the child alive (since induced labor would end the pregnancy just as easily) does not seem that big a burden. Yet my understanding is that Claudia does see six months as a reasonable cut-off point. Since you say that you agree with her, perhaps you don't mean that you find last minute abortions okay?

I am happy to drop this thread, since I think our stands are clear, and there is a need for further research to back up my position (i.e., if I found that indeed sixth month babies couldn't suffer - which I doubt - I'd be happy to change my assertion that the woman has lost her right to act by her own delay) but if your "salience" idea is something you think is worth explaining farther, please do.

Ted

Ted,

I very much agree with the posts of Claudia on this thread.

I am not up-to-date on the medical science and technology nor on the US case law since the early 80s. Back then I was current on these things, and I studied and wrote about the abortion issue. By the late 80s, I had stopped doing legal and social philosophy in order to reach further in other areas of philosophy. It is possible, however, that I might be able to add something worthwhile to this discussion, just going by memory of where things stood in my understanding back then.

Individual rights are not only principles of justice in the sense of treating persons as the kind of persons they are, but principles of social coordination. Milestones such as conception, attachment of the blastomere, quickening, viability, and birth need to be assessed along both of those dimensions for their significance in a correct determination of just legal rights.

These milestones of development are points salient in our understanding of the development of a human individual. Salience is helpful in the establishment of social conventions by which peaceful social coordinations may be achieved (Thomas Schelling's 1960 The Strategy of Conflict).

Viability and birth are points having significance both for the biological individuality of the animal and for the social coordination among the adults in the community. Prior to viability, other adults cannot become guardians of the fetus without impressing the mother into their service. That is why this point is such an important turn for the situation of rights among the adults concerning the fetus.

The point of quickening is salient in development, and was salient centuries ago, but as I recall it is not so salient in modern understanding of development. However, even if quickening were a point of great significance in the development of the fetus' brain---say it would suddenly have all the powers of detection and learning it has as of a week before full-term delivery---yet such an imagined quickening occurred before viability were reached, then, even then, it would remain a hands-off situation as far as proper legal prohibition of abortion goes.

Stephen

Bill,

That's the most healthy thing I have heard from an objectivist or anyone for that matter in quite a while. It means that you are an integrated person who's soul isn't tangled up in knots. Your transmission lines are running at full capacity, and the reverence that you are feeling is what I meant to express here. People mistake tears for sadness. (In the 1980's, a gymnast was praised in the Objectivist Forum for not crying when she won a gold metal!) Tears denote the strenth of the emotion, not its polarity. I hope you never stop crying.

Scipio is my Brother-in-law's favorite too.

Be aware, on the abortion issue, I do not regard viability as determinative, since retarded children are not "viable" and need to be cared for as adults in many cases. I regard human sentience and dignity and the responsibility of the mother for the consequences of her own actions as determinative.

Ted

After reading on abortion some I've decided to retreat back to a position of "undecided" on the issue of when personhood is established. I still favor separation but I've come to the conclusion that all of the arguments that revolve around viability (including your animacy) must be answered. Its not as simple as I thought. So, while your arguments may ultimately fail, I was wrong to dismiss them out of hand and to suggest you sounded like a Bible-thumper. I'll check back to this thread periodically as my knowledge of the subject grows.

As for the avatar, its a young 25 year old (or thereabouts) Africanus. Probably just at the start of the Spanish campaign a decade or so befor Zama. I have to admit, I have an intense love for the Roman Republic and a true reverence for Scipio Africanus. Sometimes I cry when I look at the picture in my avatar. I know, that's probably not healthy.

Bill,

One thing I dislike about online fora is that people cannot see each other face to face and gauge from their "animality" who they are. Here we are reduced to words, which, for anyone who has fallen for Goedel's Jokes, mean nothing unless instantiated. So I do like people to understand where I am coming from, and to try to understand where they are coming from, as well as simply "making the argument." Listening to DIM, I will give Peikoff full credit for this, that he is utterly fascinated by the fact that people of entirely different backgrounds, trajectories, and agenda can all verbally espouse Objectivism, but all disagree. He seems honestly puzzzled (I think I am in the lectures on personal psychology here, I have not been taking notes) and honestly grasping at an answer, but is still bewildered.

I think the answer to his question is that while rationality is our essential attribute as a differentiator from other animals, it is not a metaphysical essence (to use an obviously platonic phrase that he would not espouse) in the way that say a crystalline structure or an atomic weight might be for a chemical substance. Our animality grounds us and is our default state in those cases where we do not explicitly and willfully act on reason. We tend to come to the table with a set of unquestioned premises, and then are simply shocked to find that others don't bring the same presuppositions.

I have basically skipped over the Peikovian period of Objectivism. When I learned of Rand in 1984 as a teenager I did get the Objectivist in hard cover, but neither OPAR nor even the Lexicon were out yet. I had a brief and unhappy contact with the Objectivist Forum staff in the late 1980's, and then learned of the Kelley/Peikoff split when I found on-line O'ism in 1997. Kelley's Evidence of the Senses was,and to my mind still is, the Best philosophical work done in Rand's method, of which I am aware, that was not done by her. I especially valued that it was of such a form that I could lend it to academics without having them ask why they were reading un-annotated works that quoted the sayings of fictional characters.

I have been soured by bad experience and lack of innovation by so-called Objectivists in most other cases. I read and met Sciabarra, (he probably doesn't even remember me) and was "introduced" on line to Linz, but then due to personal circumstances, again left the O'ist world and when I came back this summer, I find that there are more than three different factions who don't, for the most part, communicate, and I am learning to know what to expect from whom.

In the meantime I make my arguments and my mistakes and correct them when I do find that I have made mistakes, and enjoy myself immensely. And I get called all sorts of strange things for reasons I don't understand, or care to really. And after 9-11 I hear Peikoff saying "Nuke 'em!" with which I can sympathize, but think he's perhaps just being a bit to ivory tower dramatic and he doesn't take into account that nuking Iran can not be done in isolation either internationally or domestically. I was glad he was willing to make the argument, but found it strange that he wasn't willing to qualify his statements even to those who might listen to him. Then I hear the "don't understand Objectivism remark," and I basically figure, okay, you've become an M1 yourself, Leonard, and I'm not putting my bread and butter on the line by saying it, so I make my arguments.

(And I should say here, I don't know anything at all about you or your "loyalties" if I may put it so bluntly, so I don't know if you are ARI or TAS or NKVD. I just know that you have addressed me on the points and have been willing to understaand what it is that you might be disagreeing with before you denounce me. James has been pretty decent this way to, he & I obviously disagree strongly over some issues, and I found the Branden's wpork to be an embarrasdsment to all involved, not an anti-Randian plot. But that's another can of worms. Just let it be said that no personal issues have ever swayed me on a matter of principles.)

So, I never did really think that among all the Objectivists I don't know and haven't met and all the fora of which I am not awarte that the issue of Abortion had not been brought up. In fact, I have a vague recollection of the reference you made to the Ayn Rand Letter, which I had also purchased when I got the Objectivist, but which I never replaced after it was borrowed and not returned, since it was mostly qvetching, as Rand herself admitted when she closed the concern. It is precisely the fact that you did provide the link below that is the sort of thing that motivates me to engage in discussions here. Otherwise, I'd be posting huge jpeg's and going off on my own for my own enjoyment regardless of other poster's interests.

I have bookmarked the link you have provided. I will comment once I've had a chance too look it over. Again, Rand is correct to argue that the latter stages are arguable. (I can't say how they got there, but Roe v Wade seems actually reasonable except that the regulation after 6 Mo.'s part is always the judgment not followed due to some loophole.) I see separation as a false distinction for the same reason that Claudia stated, a baby is still attached to you for at least another two or three if not seven or 25 years after birth. I see no way to get inside the baby to determine personhood, but I do see objective ways of determining sentience (before neural activity commences, there is no mind or person, and neural activity requires environemental input that begins with quickening) and I do think that it is reasonable to tell people that at some point they're the one's who adopted the stray cat, so now they have to keep feeding it til spring, or it'll starve, tough luck til springtime.

Perhaps it was elsewhere, but who's your avatar? Cincinnatus? Cato? Scipio? do tell.

Ted

Forgot the link:

http://forum.objectivismonline...

Here is a link to the 34 page discussion on abortion at the Objectivist forum ObjectivismOnline.net. I'm linking to page 32. Read through that page especially focusing on the posts by DaveOdden who I consider a really bright and experienced Objectivist. He discusses all types of problems with the concept "viable." And notice something Ted. You repeatedly express views that paint Objectivism as a movement dominated by people who uncritically accept everything that Rand or Peikoff said. Such people exist to be sure. But that is not the essence of the movement. I think this 34 page post on abortion shows that people are actively thinking for themselves.

As I said, I am intrigued by your arguments but from just reading through a few pages of responses from the OO post I can see that there are a number of counter arguments to be made. I'm still leaning towards seperation as personhood but I see that this is a complicated philosophical issue.

from
The Ayn Rand Letter
Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December 1975
A Last Survey--Part I

"One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable."

Note: "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy..."

She left an opening. Perhaps your arguments are on the right track. I'm still not decided.

I am notorious for going on memory. I read Rand thoroughly through in high school, and then again in full during college, and have also read all her posthumous works through twice. But I do not keep her around as a handy reference, (after Binswanger lectured me once on being concrete bound) and I usually am reading essayists, hard science, history, linguistics, fiction and new material instead. But I do happen to have a used copy of the AR Lexicon that I bought to give away as charity, its first entry is Abortion, and the third sentence is "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." She says nothing about trimesters there, but does dismiss " a few human cells" as having rights. As with the x-ray of her lung cancer, a so-called 4D sonogram might have illustrated the issue to her with slightly different results. I don't know if there is more to go on about her personal opinion that what's quoted in the Lexicon.

Like I said before, I think with Rand, the case was taken as settled and the issue is unpleasant so she probably didn't bother to think it through. I do think it is plausible that she may simply have accepted what again is the default Jewish teaching on the matter. This can be referenced in George Robinson's excellent and encyclopaedic Essential Judaism which is written by a man of Jewish ancestry who was raised a gentile and who "rediscovered" his Jewish roots. He pulls no punches, and I especially like the fact that he gives English transliterations of traditional Hebrew prayers. (Baruch Atah Adonai Eloheinu, Malek Ha-Olam...) In any case, I was immediately struck (and I use "struck" here intentionally) by the fact that Rand, the AMA, the partial-birth abortionists, and the teachings of the Rabbinate all happen to coincide in this matter. (I should not go so far as to say that Rand would have countenanced Partial Birth Abortion, since it was not addressed.)

Again, my argument rests on these presuppositions:
(1) A conscious woman knows she is pregnant within a few days of conception, and 30 at most, unless she's somehow unusual. This gives her 60-90 days before quickening (again "animacy") to make up her mind.
(2) If she cannot make up her mind to terminate the pregnancy during that period, then what is the hurry in actively killing the baby, when birth will end the pregnancy just as surely as crushing & vacuuming?
(3) Infanticide just before or after delivery is not essentially different, but killing an inanimate versus an animate fetus is. Supporting abortion until the head leaves the birth canal means accepting the premise that there is some moral difference between babies born head-first and those delivered feet-first.

Finally, If we can limit the procedure to pre-quickening, there will be very high 80-90% consensus on this matter. Nut job cases like the Dakota law would be moot. The issue will lose all political traction. And Objectivists wouldn't have to posthumously fear Reagan after all.

Ted Keer

Actually Ted, I'm pretty sure that Rand herself never talked about 2nd or 3rd trimester. She really only confined herself to the 1st. So I wouldn't go down the "this is another example of mindless adherance to Ayn Rand's views" road. I will say that I have heard and read a number of Objectivists argue for complete seperation as the start of personhood though. But I don't think that she ever phrased it that way.

You and Claudia have given me something to think about in any case. Although I am still reluctant to agree that "animacy" is the best principle here. But I have heard similar arguments before and they can't be summarily dismissed. Emotionally I am still uncomfortable with having a woman's absolute, ironclad control over her body compromised in any way. I have more sympathy and concern for a full-grown adult woman than a fetus even if it has brain wave activity and fully developed fingers and toes.

I'm going to read up on this more and "ask around" in Objectivist circles and see what I come up with.

My post was in response to Bill's.

I can deal with clearly stated positions, Bill, *no problem. I just see late term abortion as grading clearly into infanticide grading clearly into the old Roman Patria Potestas - sons have no rights till they have their own houses. "Quickening" gives any reasonable person enough time to act, and provides a veryclear cut Aristotelian criterion: animacy.

There are too many things that are "accepted as settled" since that is what Rand said, rather than that is what she chewed-on in public. And I find it interesting that her viewpoint of birth as personhood, to abbreviate the matter, happens to default to the Jewish teaching. I have read the Objectivist and everything else and nowhere see the issue discussed as other than settled from the get go. For a woman who had no children and did not understand evolution, I have to question what her view would be given our current knowledge, and her emphasis on personal responsibility.

Also, should a woman chose to "off" her child, no amount of laws will prevent it. My concern here is, why should the legal protections of a (presumuptive) child depend on whether they are delivered head first or breach birth?

Claudia, would you meet me at four months? Six requires sedating the fetus, and the "viable" moment will change unless you mean "able to be left out on the street over night" as again, in Greece & Rome.

Ted

*By which I mean, the emotions flow from the convictions, not the other way around. Otherwise why all the Objectivist excommunications, if people don't care about their convictions? I don't see people here as advocating bloodthirsty murder. I just see the issues as poorly developed and open to civil discussion, which you Claudia & I seem to be doing quite nicely.

I've given this a lot of thought, but I am open to see if I am missing something major.

My thinking is that women should have the right to abort up until the fetus is reasonably viable outside the womb. For a woman in the West, that is 6 months to make a life or death decision for her fetus/baby.

After that time she should forfeit her "right to kill" based on the fact that if induced, she can give birth and walk away if she has no way or will to raise that child. Literally thousands and thousands of childless couples would give their right arm to provide a comfortable, loving nurturance of the child, a life that many would actively value, including most probably the mother if she has not found it in her to terminate before this time.

If Peikoff and Rand say that a fetus has no rights whatsoever before birth and that all rights belong rationally to the mother, what is the substance of the argument that claims it has full rights after the deliniation phase of birth? Even during its infancy the baby still claims the absolute full attention and energy of the mother, and if she changes her mind and can't cope with her decision, the baby would go straight to an adoptive couple, not be put down.

My point is, after the fetus is reasonably viable but still invetro, the mother retains the right to walk away from it, but not anymore by initiating its death.

Once a fetus has lolled around invetro with consiousness of its surroundings and normal brain wave activity, you cannot tell me that it is "humane" to rip it limb from limb and suck it out, or inject burning saline into its amniotic fluid which scalds it to death, or induce a full labor before hiffing it in a bin. It is far more civilized to induce the mother, give her bloody brilliant pain relief or a caesarean, hand the baby to an adoring couple (usually on a waiting list for 12 years) that will hold its little hands in the incubator and gladly pay its medical costs.

The only right a mother of an unborn infant loses here is her right to kill what obviously resembles a human being more than it resembles a mere lump of cells.

"I also don't see how to separate any argument from emotion."

Do I really need to straighten you out on the difference between argument based on reason and argument based on emotion or the difference between an argument and the emotions that the argument illicits? I see that you feel stongly about this, but that doesn't mean that you have offered any argument that a fetus during any stage is possessed of political rights.

"But I do assert that simply following the party line that birth confers rights is an unconsidered opinion."

That birth designates the begining of personhood and therefore establishes a political citizen is the Objectivist position as I understand it. Now I am open to that being challenged as I have said. Andrew Bernstein argued that birth designates full separation and individuation from the mother. I like the clear line-drawing of that* but I also see that it can be challanged on a number of fronts which I hope some people do so I can see potential alternatives.

*You've raised the issue of when the fetus is politically individuated; ie is it when it comes down the fellopian tubes?, when its head is sticking out the vagina?, or when the umbillical cord is cut? I think there may have to be some line-drawing here which while not arbitrary can have an optional element to it. I definitely think that once the thing is on its way down the shoot and out the door that its a full blown person. But this is just another issue of "when is a beard a beard?". The concept of a spectrum or range of states is all over the field of philosophy.

But once again the important and essential issue to answer with regard to abortion is when do rights apply.

Lastly I want to state my emotional response to abortion and I stress that it is just an emotional response, not an intellectual one. No matter what the right answer to abortion turns out to be, I feel that a woman's autonomy is so important that I would rather her have the right to the "infanticide" of a pre-born fetus than lose it. Why? Because I like that the emphasis is given to the adult woman rather than fetus which though it has biological life does not have conceptual or psychological life. I don't want to see the actual surrendered to a potential. Also, I see this issue as so distinctly religious and so tied to altruism. So I would err on the side of "infanticide" on this one if that's what it turns out to be which I don't think it will.

So my emotional reaction is diametricaly opposite to yours. I don't know if you have a religious background before Objectivism, but I would bet dollars to donuts that you do.

"Now a good question pertains to exactly when during those last few days rights attach. I can't answer that. I don't know enough biology."

This is the vital premise. Any ex-Jews can confirm that the head leaving the birth canal rule, which Rand accepted without challenge, is a Talmudic precept. Aquinas considered that babies had souls at quickening - end of first trimester, or fourth month when self-initiated motion begins, i.e., "kicking." Romans accepted that a father could kill any minor unwed son under his roof at will - 21 years in some cases, I believe, but certainly boys with beards. I don't think that "a matter of days" is a reassonable answer given the biology, in which I have a B.A., and have seen the development of my nephew. My brother in law believes it is an "aesthetic" matter, but a matter over which he might be willing to kill. I also don't see how to separate any argument from emotion. That's why Rand always used such powerfully effective analogies and metaphors. I'm not arguing based on religion, But I do assert that simply following the party line that birth confers rights is an unconsidered opinion. I am not out bombing abortion clinics myself. Christians who hold that life begins at conception, if they were not hypocrites, should be.

I think the mattere can be settled as a matter of maternal responsibility. When, by her own chosen inaction, in not terminating a pregnancy before the fetus has reached sentience, viability, or whatever, does the woman's right to behead a baby in her birth canal become no longer legally defensible? At that late a stage, why is waiting until birth so much worse than murder (a description I do not withdraw.) Again, some might say they have no problem with it at all, but then why not allow partial-birth sushi-bars in a free society?

Ted Keer

I am going to leave it up to others to discuss some of the science here. But for starters:

"Do we get the right at seven years? At 21 like the Romans?"

Come on Ted. Get serious. What Objectivist is arguing for killing baby infants after pregnancy, let alone 21 year olds. The latest would be up until pregnancy. Now a good question pertains to exactly when during those last few days rights attach. I can't answer that. I don't know enough biology.

"And tell me why some stupid fool who changes her mind (no matter what the cause) at six months, has the right to end three months waiting by crushing someone's skull. Not potential skull. Actual skull."

Emotionalisitic language aside, this is begging the question. What is at issue here is the question of personhood. That "potential skull" does not belong to a person as far as the issue of political rights is concerned. Now that's the position I hold currently. As I said, I am open to couter-arguments that a latter-term fetus is a person. But it would have to be a pretty damn good argument. Neural activity sound interesting, but I am warry of this because it seems that you can always suggest some element of human life back to the point of conception. Then what of the right to abortion at all?

Lastly I'll say this. I wonder if full capitalism wouldn't take care of this problem. In a laissez faire society, in all probability, medicine and technology would probably make natural pregnancy obsolete.

"If a woman evades her decision for that long though, that she has to kill the fetus when it would be viable outside her womb (with help admittedly), I would seriously disrespect her choice."

So would I, but that's irrelevant to the issue of rights.

"But if I saw a boy stuff a fire cracker up his cat's ass and blow it sky high, I'd berate him for being such a sadistic bastard."

I'd go further. I'd smack the little shit right in his head. But again that doesn't change the fact that animals don't have rights. They are a very special form of property though. And our sadistic little brat under a rational legal system would serve jail time for the destruction of a very special form of property.

I think a woman has the "right" to abort.

If a woman evades her decision for that long though, that she has to kill the fetus when it would be viable outside her womb (with help admittedly), I would seriously disrespect her choice.

I am not an animal person. They have no rights as far as I'm concerned. But if I saw a boy stuff a fire cracker up his cat's ass and blow it sky high, I'd berate him for being such a sadistic bastard.

Do we get the right at seven years? At 21 like the Romans? The tradition of "when the head leavess the birth canal" is from the Talmud. Tell me where you want to draw the line, and why. And tell me why some stupid fool who changes her mind (no matter what the cause) at six months, has the right to end three months waiting by crushing someone's skull. Not potential skull. Actual skull.

Ted

It may be killing as that involves merely ending the life of something; ie anti-biotics "killing" a virus. But it is not murder which involves killing a *person* which is what the abortion debate is all about. Dr. Peikoff stated it best when he said the abortion debate amounts to "at what specific time from fertilization to pregnancy do individual rights apply?" This is a question which must be dealt with the "cold hand of reason" not the emotionalism that Reverend Keer demonstrates.

is not the source of rights. That is an argument made often by "animal rights" activists. I would be interested in a discussion of 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions from the Objectivist perspective. If you are calling a 2rd trimester fetus an "infant" then it seems that Objectivism believes in "infanticide" within a certain context. But I don't think its proper to call a fetus at any stage of pregnancy an "infant." Infancy, I believe, presupposes separation and individuation.

I must admit that I have not given this subject extensive thought. Tentatively, I think that under Objectivism a woman retains the right to an abortion up until pregnancy. But given that Ayn Rand herself only ever realy talked about the first trimester I would be open to counter arguments. But I will add that I am nowhere as emotionaly invested in this debate as Ted Keer is, who I will add sounds like a total Bible thumper IMO.

Its obvious that something which was alive is now dead after an abortion.

But murder is premeditated killing with malice. Whilst abortion is premeditated, it is not done with any malice on the part of the mother or the abortionist.

When 90 % of abortions are done within the first trimester, what is being killed is a primitive fetus or embryo.

BUT. At 26 weeks (6 months) the fetus has neurological activity that makes it able to feel pain and be conscious of its surroundings. By 30 weeks it has normal brain wave activity similar to an adults and if born at this time, has the ability to be able to breathe on its own (with difficulty). It seems harsh to me that women will terminate at this late stage, when they haven't bothered to do so earlier and considering how many couples would jump at the chance to adopt their offspring - and they're going to have a full labor anyway whether its coming out alive or dead.

I agree with you Ted that, as people on the pro-choice side of the fence, we should admit what we are agreeing to is killing infants within a certain context. To call it anything else is a big, fat, fucking fudge.

At what point does a woman's wish to kill a child so that she will not have to parent it or live with the knowledge that her own child has gone to an orphanage stop being important enough counterbalance to crushing the skull of a viable fetus who, if delivered live, one could not legally murder? Does a woman at 6 months pregnancy suddenly wake up to find that if she doen't crush the skull of the alien within her, she might actually have to go through labor with a live child, rather than murder it inside her and have it sucked out in bits? It's still coming out one way or another. How (not murdering the child)=(sacrificing the mother) follows after quickening, I don't know.

I am all for abortion during the first trimester, and have no problem with it at any time if it will save the mother's life or if the child is ancephalic.

But the fact that someone decides six months into a pregnancy that she doesn't want to face the consequences of her actions doesn't seem like a matter of rights but a denial of responsibility for one's own actions at some point.

I cannot countenance the blanket acceptance of all abortion until delivery, whatever the reason or whim. At that point it's not about an "unwanted pregnancy" becasue we all know that those end at nine months anyway. It's about wanting to deny reality and let the baby suffer. For what? Convenience?

Orphanages and adoptions exist. Women have at least two months to do something before quickening. (Assuming they become aware of conception only after 30 days, which is unusally late anyway) After that, unless your life is at danger, you got yourself into the mess, are you going to murder a child to get your way out of it? The Dakota Law was a pandering nonsense bound to fail. But unlimited abortion is no less than infanticide. If anyone here countenances infanticide, then please admit it.

Ted Keer, 15 November, 2006, NYC

You turned on some lights for me and I spent a lot of time pondering the difference between abortion and circumcision. I wrote my thoughts down and have since obtained a newly discovered appreciation for philosophy and articulation. In writing a response I noticed that abortion just wasn't in the same ballpark and the subject has been outweighed by a single issue, regarding the rights of an existing child.

Anyhow, I have posted it in the Lindz Live thread, as I think it is more appropriate there.

As for abortion, I can sum that up in a three words, "freedom of choice". As for the rage I feel for anyone who opposes the freedom of choice" of a woman in this instance, is too great to for me to put eloquently.

Freedom - I would fight to the death defending, because for me there is no life without it.

Contraceptives and hair dye are off the list too...

Melissa

"Shiny. Let's be bad guys."

"Haven't you been reading the Circumcision thread? Mustn't tamper with nature, now!"

No, that thread is imperfect and unclean. I have decided that it should be cut off and removed from the eyes of any children I may have. It will hopefully become a staunch family tradition

Haven't you been reading the Circumcision thread? Mustn't tamper with nature, now!

Another round of applause