 |
Comments |
|
 | Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 9:18:13 mst
Comment ID: #1
Name: Sascha Settegast
E-mail: sascha.settegast(at)gmx.de
URL: http://heroicdreams.wordpress.com
I fully agree. That's a great argument on an aspect of the problem that I wasn't sure about either. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 10:10:06 mst
Comment ID: #2
Name: Blake Scholl
E-mail: bscholl(at)alumni.cmu.edu
Nice post. I agree with your basic take on the rights question here.
It's not just a coincidence that the rights-begin-at-birth premise is the only way to "engineer" rights that doesn't result in a contradiction; it reflects the nature of individual rights as *individual* rights. Before birth, a fetus is quite literally not an individual but *part* of an individual. Assigning rights to anything other than *exactly* individuals necessarily results in a violation of individual rights.
I'm curious, though, why you so strongly condemn the woman who opts for a late-term abortion rather than adoption. Of course, if the decision is capricious it is wrong on those grounds alone. But why would choosing an abortion capriciously be any worse morally than any other capricious decision, if an unborn fetus has no legal or moral rights. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 10:11:10 mst
Comment ID: #3
Name: John Cox
E-mail: john.d.cox(at)gmail.com
I agree - in fact, this post has helped to crystallize some of my thinking about the issue. Late term abortion has always been a subject that I had a hard time resolving, internally. This logic certainly helps to clarify the issue.
On a (slightly) related point.
I'm curious about the debate regarding a Constitutional right to privacy. It certainly should be in the Constitution, but it seems to me, Roe v Wade and other cases notwithstanding, that there isn't really one currently in the Constitution. In fact, I believe Roe v Wade (or perhaps an earlier privacy decision which Roe V Wade builds upon) cites "penumbras" of the Constitution to justify a right to privacy, because one isn't clearly spelled out within it.
I was researching this on the internet a bit, and I found a few notes online from an Objectivist Conference that was held a few years ago in Colorado, where Amy Peikoff was discussing this, and it seems she rejects the right to privacy as it is currently understood in the law. I was unable to find anything that explained this view fully.
I'd be interested in hearing everyone's views on this, as well as what you see as the proper judicial philosophy of an Objectivist.
Are there any articles or books out there that deal with this subject?
Thanks!
John |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 10:39:59 mst
Comment ID: #4
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
John Cox:
I assume you're talking about Amy Peikoff's talk at the Objectivism and Law conference from 2006?
http://www.frontrangeobjectivism.com/2006-law.html
I don't have my notes in front of me, but my recollection of her position was that "privacy" does not exist as a right per se, but what most people would want covered under privacy would be handled through contract law. Hence, if you want the details of what books you purchased through Amazon to be made available, then you would work it out through private contract with Amazon. Similarly, you might wish to have the details of your purchases at your local grocery store be released to other stores in exchange for receiving a 5% discount through your voluntary use a frequent shopper card. Other aspects of privacy would be consequences of property rights.
But otherwise, there is no separate right to privacy that isn't already covered by those other concepts. And that the legal creation of a right to "privacy" thus causes other problems with respect for genuine rights (I don't have any concrete examples to cite at the moment.)
(If anyone else who attended that conference has a better recollection, please feel free to make appropriate additions or corrections.) |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:05:42 mst
Comment ID: #5
Name: Aaron Davies
E-mail: agd12(at)columbia.edu
Not that I necessarily support the "viability" line, but couldn't you justify aborting a viable fetus to save the mother's life on duress grounds? |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:08:45 mst
Comment ID: #6
Name: jb
E-mail: johnbr(at)gmail.com
I'm going to be the dissenter here. Having shared the experience of three pregnancies and births with my wife, after a certain point, the unborn child is (IMO) still clearly a biologically independent entity. It can be ripped from the womb, and still fed and cared for. My children were all noticeably different, while they were still inside. One was an acrobat, and he is still an acrobat on the outside. One was enraptured with music - kicking excitedly when I sang to him. He still loves music. My daughter was neither acrobatic nor music-loving, and she is, at 5, sweet, gentle and easy-going.
In other words, many of their human characteristics were formed when they were not a "biologically independent unit". Which makes it very hard for me to agree to the concept that there is a "bright line". They had many of the characteristics of their humanity before they were born.
Second example: A mother is in labor. The baby girl is crowning (which means her head is starting to poke out). Which side of the "bright line" is she on? If she's on the wrong side, that means I'm free to stab her in the head with an eggbeater and scramble her brains. No harm, no foul. I'm being deliberately visceral on purpose - this isn't some random abstract concept we are talking about.
I'm not saying that people who feel differently than I do on this subject are evil or ethically wrong. But I don't think that the bright line is as bright and clear as Paul says.
I have a bunch of other issues with abortion, all of which come from what I feel are rational and logical positions, but I don't want to overload the thread, and I'm running out of time.
Thanks. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:29:33 mst
Comment ID: #7
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Blake wrote: "I'm curious, though, why you so strongly condemn the woman who opts for a late-term abortion rather than adoption. Of course, if the decision is capricious it is wrong on those grounds alone. But why would choosing an abortion capriciously be any worse morally than any other capricious decision, if an unborn fetus has no legal or moral rights."
Rights are not the only consideration in moral evaluations, as you surely realize!
Consider: It would be morally wrong for a person to abuse a dog or cat -- very seriously morally wrong, to the point that I would refuse all contact with such a person -- even though I regard such behavior as within their rights. The moral problem with such behavior is that it reveals vicious character traits, particularly a kind of pleasure or satisfaction in causing significant pain to a defenseless being that one has voluntarily taken into one's care. Notably, that same vice often motivated the ruthless beating of slaves by their masters. It's also a source of child and elder abuse. If a person has that vice, but refrains from exercising it on humans due to their rights, that person still has the vice. And so he poses a risk to everyone around him, precisely due to the conflict in his moral character.
The abortion of a healthy full-term fetus on a whim reveals a similar vice. That vice is not merely capriciousness -- although that's quite significant in this case, given the burdens of pregnancy. It's a determination to destroy a nearly-actual human being rather than allow willing and decent people to care for it. In other words, it's a destructive form of possessiveness. (I can imagine other underlying motives -- all of them similarly bad -- such as a determination to hurt the expectant father.) So while aborting a healthy full-term fetus on a whim is within a persons legal rights, that doesn't imply that it's not rooted in significant vice, for which a person can be morally condemned.
FYI, my analysis of these kinds of cases is very much rooted in Aristotle's moral psychology, which I regard as correct in its fundamentals, if interpreted properly. In my judgment, that approach is consistent with the Objectivist ethics, particularly with the fact that humans must think and act on principle and the effect of one's ideas on one's emotions. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:39:35 mst
Comment ID: #8
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
jb:
A vehicle under construction can be recognized early on as a potential car or truck, even if they still lack certain essential characteristic parts, such as the engine. Nevertheless, it is *not* considered an actual vehicle until it has those essential parts it needs to function as a vehicle. Differentiation is not therefore a sufficient condition of actualization.
Regarding your second example, that looks like the sort of question that would have to be dealt with at the legal level, which pertains to question of precisely how to apply a principle. I cannot say whether such an action would be murder, or some other charge. I DO know that such an action would have severe legal consequences regardless of where actualization occurs. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 11:47:50 mst
Comment ID: #9
Name: Kim
URL: http://kimsplayplace.blogspot.com
A good friend of mine who has since moved to Alaska helped me with this same issue a number of years ago. The case of the mother's life being in danger makes the case easier to sympathize with but I believe it can muddy the waters. I think the only real right to note is the mother's right to liberty. The child has no rights until it is delivered. In order to give the fetus rights one must violate the right to liberty of the woman carrying it. In other words, there is no way to remove a baby from its mother without constraining her in some way. One may think that an abortion isn't that much different than labor at a late term, but that's the woman's choice as opposed to an imposed requirement.
Those of us with children understand how much we love them and began to love them even before they were born. That does not make it right to constrain the actions of a full-fledged, living, independent human. For those of us who are uncomfortable with the idea that someone may choose to terminate a pregnancy late there are charities that do everything possible to make an unwanted pregnancy easier to live with so that the woman would prefer to give it up for adoption, as long there isn't any lobbying to make it illegal.
There are a few things (cruelty to animals, late abortion, raising children like animals) that make me squeamish. But they are very fringe items that are infrequent. They pale in comparison to the right to liberty and property which are required for the right to life. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 12:06:10 mst
Comment ID: #10
Name: jb
E-mail: johnbr(at)gmail.com
#8 - Using your analogy, the "vehicle" is complete at about 25 weeks. I.e. the child has all the parts. The child is viable outside the womb.
#9 - "In order to give the fetus's rights, one must violate the right to liberty of the woman carrying it". Let me restate, since you can't give something rights: "In order to recognize the rights of the fetus, one must constrain/violate some of the rights of the woman carrying it."
---- So what? A newborn baby clearly constrains/violates the rights of the mother/father. There's clearly precedent for dependents to constrain the rights of those that are depended on. The key here is your assumption that the fetus isn't endowed with human rights as the given. But it's that "given" that I disagree with.
You see the fetus as animate property,then, yes? Like a pet, or a proto-human chattel slave. Do you recognize any rights in pets or proto-human slaves?
Again (and i will repeat this in every single post), I do not think the people disagreeing with me are evil or immoral. But I find the concept that there's a bright diving line at birth to be logically flawed.
|
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 12:47:40 mst
Comment ID: #11
Name: Bill
E-mail: wjmcdermod(at)gmail.com
Thanks everyone for a deeper insight on a very difficult issue. I have had a hard time trying to decide the legally proper way to handle late term abortion, and this is the best solution I have read.
jb, you said, "But I find the concept that there's a bright diving line at birth to be logically flawed." I am not sure anyone is saying that birth is the bright diving line, but that legally, it should be viewed that way in order to protect the rights of the mother in the situation where late term abortion is necessary to save her life. Although this may allow women the right to terminate for non-health related issues (an idea I find abhorrant as well) I am not sure that this would be that common. I doubt many doctors who perform abortions would perform such a procedure (I probably wouldn't if I were a doctor) and those who would are probably not the type of doctors one should be going to (and if you do, you get what you deserve).
Think of it in terms of drugs. In principle, all drugs should be legal, but if I am a seller of drugs, there is no way I am giving someone a drug that could potentially kill them without getting a doctor's permission in the first place. If, as a consumer, you wish to get the drug anyway, there may be people who sell without permission, but again, you get what you deserve as a consumer in that situation. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 12:55:53 mst
Comment ID: #12
Name: Nolan Eakins
E-mail: nolan(at)eakins.net
URL: http://nolan.eakins.net/
I personally like the argument presented at http://www.abortionisprolife.com/ which has life beginning at conception. Then it argues that the unborn fetus is a person and as such has no right to live inside another person without that person's permission. It's the best argument that I've heard for abortion, and has many parallels with kicking a child/person out of a house for whatever reason, even if they can't survive on their own. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 12:58:57 mst
Comment ID: #13
Name: John Cox
E-mail: john.d.cox(at)gmail.com
Paul - thanks for the info. What would one then say about Row v Wade, which relied upon the fallacy of a Right to Privacy? Should it be overturned, and the states allowed to pass their own laws? Clearly the moral solution would be for each state to grant individuals the ability to have an abortion. But the reality is that some would not.
IMO - it should be overturned. The judicial logic behind it (that if something a particular judge thinks SHOULD be in the Constitution, but isn't, they should then twist words to somehow "discover" it) leads to all manner of power grabs and lawmaking by fiat from the Supreme Court.
Once overturned, a concerted effort must then be made to ensure that each state allows abortion as a viable alternative to pregnancy.
Opinions? |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 13:07:58 mst
Comment ID: #14
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
John Cox:
This issue has come up in some of our local Objectivist discussions as well. Here's my take.
There is a right to abortion, but the US Supreme Court has wrongly based it on a fallacious basis of "privacy". Hence, there is a real risk that the particular Roe-v-Wade decision will be overturned because the legal reasoning behind it is faulty, even though women should still have the right to an abortion.
Ideally, the courts would uphold the right to an abortion based on proper legal grounds. Whether that will happen is a very open question. Basic rights should not be subject to a patchwork of state laws - but that may very well be the outcome. Like you said, this may shift the political battleground to the states until the US Supreme Court makes some sort of clear national-level ruling on the issue, for right or for wrong.
I certainly understand those who don't want to question the notion of a right to privacy too vigorously because it will lead to the overturning of Roe-v-Wade. But I fear this is going to happen sooner or later *anyways*, so people need to be ready to make the moral and legal arguments to protect a woman's right to an abortion at the local and state level. I don't forsee the current status quo lasting indefinitely. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 13:41:12 mst
Comment ID: #15
Name: Ergo
E-mail: jjdoub(at)yahoo.com
URL: http://ergosum.wordpress.com
In addition to considering the fact that only actual human beings can have rights, there's another aspect that needs equal emphasis, namely, there is a highly *limited* context that makes freedom of action possible, i.e., a context that gives rise to the possibility, existence, and practicability of rights.
For example, prison cells drastically limit freedom of action; hence, little to no rights are possible or practicable there. This fact bears a reciprocal relationship with the fact that people in prison have little to no rights due to their past actions. (You violate rights and so you forfeit them by being consigned to a place where your rights are abridged or denied.)
Likewise, in a very broad sense, it is only an independent existence in the natural world outside the womb that gives rise to the possibility of rights being practicable--and therefore, meaningful. The womb is simply not a place--even potentially ever--where rights (freedom of actions) can ever materialize, regardless of how fully developed the fetus is. I think this fact is important and should be emphasized in drawing the line of legally permissible actions at the point of birth. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 14:16:17 mst
Comment ID: #16
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
Just to throw in some real-life considerations, let me pose the following example:
A pregnant woman late in her third trimester comes to the ER after getting in a bad car accident. The fetus is past the point of viability - in other words, if delivered it could live on its own, but of course the longer it continues to develop, the better its long-term chances will be.
Most of the time, there is no conflict of interests between the mother and fetus. Resuscitation measures that would good for the mother will also usually be good for the fetus. Conversely, the best way to protect the fetus (in general) is to ensure the survival of the mother.
But on occasion, their medical interests will collide. It may be that if the placenta is torn, the mother will lose blood at a dangerous rate and it will be critical to stop the bleeding even if it increases the chance of the fetus dying. Or she might have other injuries that need critical surgery, but the surgery to repair the mother's other internal injuries will result in increased chance of harm or even death to the fetus. And it may also be that measures to save the fetus would results in increased risk of the mother dying.
Currently in those circumstances, trauma surgeons adopt the principle of "Treat The Mother First".
They will do everything they can to protect the fetus, but *not* at the expense of the mother's survival.
If the mother is conscious and able to make her own medical decisions, she of course has the choice of selecting a different course of treatment that increases the chance of a good outcome for the fetus, even if it detrimental to her own survival. But unless there is clear reason to believe that this is the mother's explicit choice, the trauma surgeons will act to protect the mother's life (for instance if the mother is unconscious and there's no way to contact a relevant family member who has power of medical decision-making). In short, the mother's life trumps the fetus' life in those tragic cases where the two conflict.
I believe this is correct. If one adopts the other view that the 8-month old fetus has equal legal standing with the mother with respect to possessing rights, then this would have tremendous legal implications. A surgeon who performed the correct surgery to save the mother, even if it forseeably resulted in the death of the fetus could arguable be charged with murder. I find that unacceptable, and I hope most others would find that unacceptable.
And since this situation could arise all the way until the child is delivered, this also means that the mother's actual life (correctly) trumps the fetus' potential life as a future child all the way until delivery.
Fortunately, these situations don't arise too often. But they do arise in the real world, and hence it is not just arbitrary philosophical speculation to consider these situations. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 14:17:33 mst
Comment ID: #17
Name: Burgess Laughlin
E-mail: burgesslaughlin(at)macforcego.com
URL: http://www.aristotleadventure.blogspot.com
> "The child is viable outside the womb."
No, at a certain point, the *fetus* or potential child is "viable outside the womb." The suffix "-able" is telling.
"The fetus is *viable* outside the womb" is not the same as "The child *is* outside the womb." |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 14:18:44 mst
Comment ID: #18
Name: Dan G.
I think that I was focusing on "natural viability" as a consequence of the question being framed as "alive human being", or not. To *that* question natural viability is the correct answer. But I now agree that focusing on that aspect alone is not sound. Natural viability was all the more savory because it could be applied to the question of stem cells and end of life/life-support issues as well. I do agree that the risks to the mother's life are ethically prior to the viability of the fetus, and are therefore essential to the moral status of abortion. Whats more, this aspect significantly differentiate the abortion question from the other situations (stem cells and life-support) and that the question of the mother's life should be the epicenter of the argument.
The fetus may become an alive human being prior to physical separation, but that being so doesn't entitle it to another's life (i.e the mother's). That is, the obligation of a parent to provide for their child doesn't imply a requirement to die for the child.
Thanks Diana and Paul. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 17:09:57 mst
Comment ID: #19
Name: Gina Liggett
E-mail: GLiggett(at)comcast.net
I must reiterate my position on abortion: it is an absolute right at anytime up until the fetus is biologically separate from the mother. It doesn't matter if we agree with her reasons for abortion: she is to be considered an autonomous being that must make her own decisions about her life. At no time should someone else (e.g., Dobson from Focus on the Family) determine that she cannot have an abortion. She owns her life and body. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 17:17:33 mst
Comment ID: #20
Name: Diana Hsieh
E-mail: diana(at)dianahsieh.com
URL: http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog
Just in case of any confusion, I do agree with Gina's comment #19. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 19:22:56 mst
Comment ID: #21
Name: Jim May
E-mail: seerak(at)gmail.com
jb writes:
"#8 - Using your analogy, the "vehicle" is complete at about 25 weeks. I.e. the child has all the parts. The child is viable outside the womb."
Well, if we are going to keep up with my analogy, there likely comes a similar point in the construction of a vehicle where it has all the essential parts so that it could be driven around as a "vehicle" -- but it still lacks all the accoutrements such as doors, upholstery, paint, head and taillights, muffler etc.... in other words, the factory isn't going to be able to call it a "car" and sell it to us until it leaves the assembly line, complete.
Please note that this analogy was solely to illustrate that the point at which the embryo/fetus shows unique characteristics is IMO not a good place to mark as the point of actualization, versus separation. The latter is very definite, for one thing.
I also concur with Gina above, in that notwithstanding any uncertainties regarding the actualization point, the rights of the woman involved are a 100% certainty, and therefore take precedence over anything less than that certainty in regards to the fetus. |
|
| Wednesday, June 4, 2008 at 20:33:33 mst
Comment ID: #22
Name: Rob Abiera
I believe it is the 9th Amendment which protects "unenumerated rights". I don't know if this is sufficient protection or grounds for a right to privacy or not. I personally believe that abortion is more a matter of property rather than privacy, in that the mother's life is her own property and anything which interferes with her right to judge how to live her own life is a violation of her right to her own life. Such violation is only possible under a morality of sacrifice, which also makes it possible to concieve of referring to a fetus as a piece of property or a slave or pet. It is none of these things. A fetus is a potential human being which it is eminently appropriate to value, care for and love by the mother and her spouse to the extent that the fetus does not represent any kind of violation of the mother's right to live her life according to her own rational judgement. A child which a mother does not love and care for is not a value to that mother, and to the extent that such a mother does continue to take care of such a child, she has sacrificed her own values and the child will be the victim of that sacrifice, inasmuch as any love the mother may profess for the child will be a lie.
I find jb's comment about ripping fetuses from the womb to be telling, inasmuch as wombs exist inside actual, living mothers. I will not follow jb's example of refusing to pass moral judgement: I consider the comment to be vicious, even monstrous.
Oh, and jb - the "bright line" is when the umbilical cord is cut. |
|
| Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 7:21:16 mst
Comment ID: #23
Name: jb
E-mail: johnbr(at)gmail.com
#22 - you make me sad. My daughter rested for 20 minutes on my wife's chest, nursing comfortably while we left the umbilical cord attached so she could get as much cord blood as possible. To claim that if someone came in at that point, and killed my daughter, it would not be considered murder, but abortion, and at worst, assault... well.... it makes me sad.
The rest of you - clearly you don't feel the fetus, like a chattel slave, has any rights. I think it does have some rights. Not as much as an adult, or a child, but still some rights. You keep talking about a bright line, where rights go from 0% to 100%, because you _need_ that in order for your philosophy to have no grey areas. But I reject all of these premises - that the fetus has no rights, that there is a bright line, and that Objectivist philosophy can't have any grey areas.
Yes, a grey area makes things complicated. So what? Lots of things in this world are complicated. Yes it means that in some situations, the mother's rights are constrained. It doesn't mean that abortions must never be legal, or that the mother's interests are not taken into account. It just means that there are situations where there is no perfect answer.
In any case, I've had children. I've seen their expression of self-determination and free will while they were still in the womb. They were humans then, or at least proto-humans, and they had rights. They weren't theoretical beings, whose rights appeared in a flash as they were born, or as the umbilical cord was cut. They already had rights at that point. Brick by brick, over time, these rights developed, as the heart started beating, as they started kicking, as they started to respond to their environment and as they took their first breath.
There's no logical basis to claim that it happened all at once. Just a preference on your part to keep your philosophy simple. But I don't care about your preferences to keep things simple. If someone had taken a knife to my wife's belly when she was pregnant, and killed the 39-week-old fetus (without killing her), I find it bizarre that anyone would not consider that to be murder.
I recognize that you all disagree with me, and that's fine. Again, I don't think you're evil or immoral. But I do believe that in your desire to keep the philosophy "perfectly white", you make choices that are not based in logic, but in arbitrary convenience. Then you pat yourselves on the back and talk about how rational you all are. There is no perfectly rational way to apply discrete demarcations to continuous processes.
I'm absolutely certain that nothing I have said has made any impact with any of you at all in any way, so I'll be leaving now. I've said what I needed to say, and Diana did ask for thoughts.
Cheers. |
|
| Thursday, June 5, 2008 at 8:37:05 mst
Comment ID: #24
Name: Paul Hsieh
E-mail: paul(at)geekpress(dot)com
URL: http://www.geekpress.com
To jb:
In the situation you described, where the baby is out of the mother but still attached via umbilical cord, there is a significant metaphysical difference. The baby is no longer *dependent* on the mother for its very existence. The cord blood is desirable, but not essential for the baby's survival. The baby is getting oxygen through his/her own lungs. There is no potential conflict of interest where the mother's life might have to be sacrificed to save the baby or vice versa. It is in fact fully independent of the mother. In my opinion, the fact that the cord is still attached is not essential, given that it is fully separate being. Hence, killing the child at that point (in my opinion) would be murder. |
|
| Friday, June 6, 2008 at 12:11:59 mst
Comment ID: #25
Name: John Dailey
E-mail: phyrm_1(at)hotmail.com
~ Unfortunately, so many still concentrate on the 'physical' aspects of a fetus (er, 'unborn "child"' for some), such as viability, bright-line-of-birth, (aka, the 'living meat' part) etc, or the confusing of moral rights with legal (Constitutional or State) ones; I find these arguments a bit superficial.
~ No one seems to consider the possession of a Consciousness relevent; why not? Granted there's room to debate its existence in the 3rd trimester, but...it's not even considered as pertinent.
LLAP
J:D |
|
| Saturday, June 7, 2008 at 9:56:34 mst
Comment ID: #26
Name: Alexander Hrin
E-mail: alex.hrin(at)gmail.com
I've been thinking about this issue a great deal lately. Actually, when I originally questioned the Objectivist stance on this issue, I thought that the question of rights had to be settled based on when the fetus becomes conscious of its own existence. Since I think that it is largely man's consciousness that necessitates the existence of rights, I totally agree with JD that this should be taken into consideration when dealing with the issue of abortion. Unfortunately, I think the unique nature of the relationship of the mother and the fetus that also has to be taken into consideration. Since the interests of the mother and the fetus can in fact come into conflict (as illustrated by Paul), there needs to be some mechanism for determining who takes precedence. It's for this reason that I think the fetus cannot be on equal standing with the mother. I had originally thought that perhaps there could be a contextual consideration for the rights of the fetus, based on whether or not the mother's life was threatened. But ultimately, I think the mother is the only one who has a right to make that decision. If there were such rights for the fetus it would have to be determined arbitrarily (most likely by the state) as to when the mother's life was in danger, and what constituted acceptable risk. It's for this reason that I have to agree with Diana that the fetus cannot have rights that supersede the choice of the mother, but I would hold it as morally wrong for a woman to have a late term abortion just because she felt like it.
Thanks for the topic Diana.
Alex Hrin |
|
|
Post Your Comment |
|
|
|
E-mail Diana Hsieh
Comments
