Bloody Evasions: Abortion & Objectivism
Posted by TheChristianEgoist 11 years, 2 months ago to Philosophy
Objectivists commit some pretty massive evasion on the issue of abortion.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- 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
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
There is no "potential". It is either "actually" a human being, or it is not. A or non-A.
If it is a human being, then to "abort" it is to kill it. And if that is the case, then you need to fit everything else you have said into that context:
"However, I also find myself without moral justification to force a woman to"... not kill a human?? I could give you some moral justification for that. And so could Ayn Rand!
"What right do I have to demand that she"...not kill a human?
"If the woman is a victim of rape or incest, who am I to tell her"... not to kill a human?
You see, thinking rationally and in context makes things much clearer.
I read the article and understood it. I believe we have a simple disagreement on what constitutes opinion and what is fact. I simply find myself not as resolute as you on the definition of what it is to be human and at what stage a zygote or embryo acquire the same status as the woman. There have been countless miscarriages and stillborn births. This simple fact demonstrates that there is a difference between potential and actual, or at least casts doubt on the premise that all potential will become actual. Because of this birth certificates are issued at birth not before, and therefore full rights as defined by law must then be adhered to. Your argument that the fetus has human DNA is not sufficient because it may also be found in your fingernails as you posit. No one would argue that you can’t dispose of your nails. Your assertion that it is not the same because it has a different combination is also insufficient in the eyes of many. Other people’s fingernails have different DNA combinations. You claim that stage of development is not a criteria essential to be a full fledged human. That is where the objectivist argument is perhaps the strongest, yet to some it is subjective on both sides.
Tell me The Christian Egoist, in your terms, when is a baby given a soul? Conception? Can you prove this? You will find I am quite receptive to your moral argument if you can answer this question with empirical evidence. Likewise, I am also swayed by an argument that provides evidence of the moment when consciousness or cognitive abilities are evident. This is why I object to late term abortions without reservation. Your conclusion is that objectivist approval hinges upon an evaluation of an individuals humanity. Correct. It is the definition of what it is to be a human that is in question. Your definition is unfortunately not embraced by all. Even if I agree to your definitions, you have no better solution, than to return to the days of back alley abortions... You offer only condemnation of a human failing that laws have not prevented since time immemorial. How will that improve things? I desire an alternative. The morning after pill seems just as objectionable to right to lifers…
Your closing paragraph closes with ad-hominem name calling and condemns “cowardly, evasive, pseudo-intellectuals” on the basis of their subjectivity, yet your criteria seem just as subjective. With what I view as subjectivity on both sides, I personally lean on the side of life, but others see things differently. Though I must say, you make as compelling an argument as I have heard. Having said all of that; I am more in your camp than you know. I appreciate your humanity. Being a man, it is not a problem I have had to face, though I would like to believe that except perhaps to save my own life, were I in such a circumstance, I would choose life. I am just waiting for an argument or development that is indisputable and without subjectivity on either side. I would like to live in a world where abortions are non-existent, where people were responsible, rape and incest did not occur, birth control was 100% effective, all children were born to a mother that wanted and cared for their offspring and child abuse and death did not occur due to unwanted pregnancies. Do you have workable solutions to these problems that have yet to be tried? If so, I am very interested.
Note: I am not an "objectivist" and I do not strictly adhere to objectivist dogma or I would place no limit on abortion except the discretion of the woman. For me, that would be doctrinaire.
"Rationally and in context..." yeah... right... I'll try to remember that... sounds a bit condescending to me... Still, I did enjoy the exchange and reading your perspective. Who is John Galt?
Respectfully,
O.A.
There are a lot of comments (in fact, the majority) which completely ignore the actual article posted here. The article outlines and refutes the most popular and evasive arguments "for abortion"... and yet everyone in this thread keeps committing the same fallacies:
-Changing the Subject
-Definition by Non-Essentials
-Subjective Views of Rights
There's one other fallacy being used a lot which I did not include in the article, and that is:
-Morality by Extremes (or by Emergencies).
This isn't a random post about "Abortion in General". There is a very specific argument presented which would be good to engage.
Thanks.
1) At the twinkle of an eye?
2) When sperm and egg connect?
3) At twenty weeks of gestation?
4) When the fetus is capable of living independently of the womb?
5) At delivery?
I'll applaud anyone who takes up the challenge.
The thing being aborted: what species is it? Human or other? It's not a frog or a giraffe. It's human. Is it alive or dead? Alive. So, it is a live human being. Pretty simple.
This is spelled out in more detail in the article.
I will never ever understand people who fail to connect cause and effect:
You perform the act whose function is to create a baby, and then act outraged when you actually get pregnant.
That's like eating a bucket of ice cream and then acting outraged that you got fat.
However, I will accept your argument *only if it is applied equally in all cases*.
Agreed? Okay then, I have the right to stick a pair of scissors in the back of the head of any illegal aliens I encounter.
this is clearly an issue you feel personally about. I am sorry for your pain. but you cannot pick and choose who gets to have an opinion on such a large issue, john. The debate is healthy and persuade away, but others feel just as strongly as you do, and I do not want to be legislated de facto gender. That is in the past, and women are not property. where does it stop? can you force her to eat properly, not take drugs, stop from falling purposefully down a flight of stairs? Force will never be the good answer.
the only man to face impotence in the face of
death?
I am finding it more than passing ironic that this site has many participating females and none until a few minutes ago entered into this discussion. Why? I wonder why...
At best, this is an argument from silence.
The rest of what you describe is no different than death by natural causes. There was no volition involved in the matter and therefore it doesn't say anything about the morality of that matter.
But when you do bring volition into it (at the end of your comment), you are blanking out the nature and context of the thing you are claiming the right to willfully "abort" (i.e. kill). It is a living human being.
The rest of what you say amounts to "I'm smart enough to kill a human all on my own -- I don't need other people telling me who, when, or how. It's my choice to kill a human as I see fit."
Shame is one of the mechanisms which keep us from acting like animals.
Which actions in "keep us from acting like animals" are you referring to?.
silence on the subject. The bible addresses it
only indirectly. This link is an example.
http://civilliberty.about.com/od/abortio...
I can think for myself and say: this is not a good time to allow the trash from failed nations to invade my country and screw it up.
You can rationalize all you want; it is against the law to, with premeditation, take a human life.
Either the law applies to you or it doesn't apply to me.
Human genetic pattern = human.
Problem solved.
" I swear by my life to live for no man...."
Without requiring the assumption of responsibility for the results of one's actions, Objectivism becomes the selfish, self-centered, hedonistic philosophy its detractors believe it to be.
The sex act exists for the purpose of procreation, just as the act of eating exists for the purpose of nourishment. One can enjoy eating, but its purpose is nourishment, and if one over eats, or eats the wrong foods, one should be responsible for dealing with the results.
Likewise, if one engages in the act whose purpose is the creation of a human life, then one is responsible for the results of that act... no matter how unintended.
Have all the sex you like. But if the act whose function is to create a baby actually succeeds... be responsible for your actions, and don't make an innocent pay horribly for your behavior and desire to evade responsibility.
Personally, my code of behavior is that I will only make love to a woman whom I'm willing to marry and raise a child with.
At the mortal expense of innocents.
Please explain to me how I'm supposed to follow the rational argument that I can't go around shooting tourists to get money to buy crack cocaine? "Oh, he's on crack, so he gets a pass on that murder"... is that your argument?
Responsibility does enter into it. If you are to have authority over your life, you must have responsibility for it. If you behave irresponsibly in a fashion that harms others, we call that a crime and punish you for it. Or at least lock you away from potential victims.
So if a crack whore is caught having an abortion, she should have her tubes tied or be given a hysterectomy. At least.
The abortionist should get between 25 years and lethal injection.
Then I tell you "it's actually very simple. This is how you know..."
Then you change the subject to farm animals.
Again, please *read the article*.
If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being, then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.. It has everything to do with the morality of murder.
Please. Stop changing the subject. If you want to demand that a woman has the right to kill a child, then say so and stop hiding behind evasive language about "choice" and "reproduction".
You are still making the same mistake. You should read a book on critical thinking. It will teach you how to avoid making logical errors and how to spot them in others arguments. Therein you will also learn the use of the syllogism. This tool allows one to take a major premise, a minor premise, and reach a conclusion. The first one learned as an undergraduate is:
If all men are mortal (major)
If Socrates is a man (minor)
Then Socrates is mortal (conclusion)
Your mistake in this post lies in this line:
"If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being, then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.." which takes us from your major premise "If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being " directly to a conclusion
"then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.. "
You have no minor premise. Your logical error is
known as non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") Study up and try again.
I shouldn't have to spell it out in a syllogism for you.
Women don't have a special right to murder live humans.
In an abortion, the thing being "aborted" is a live human.
To have an abortion is to murder a live human.
Women do not have the right to have an abortion.
Therefore, to speak of "women's rights to choose" and "reproductive rights" in the context of abortion is just as hideous a changing of the subject as it would be to refer to slavery as "a white man's right to industry".
But again, that was in the original article -- which you still apparently have not read.
your major premise that upon successful connection of sperm and egg a human life is formed? If so, what is your minor premise?
If an abortion is attempted the next day via the
morning-after pill would that be murder? If so,
to what degree?
Assertion is not proof. Not in a court of law.
It's not a giraffe! Or a frog! There is nothing "potential" about it. It is either a live human or it is not. A or non-A.
2. there is a difference between whether you think it is a moral decision, however, that does not give the govt the right to use force to require you to act
3. is the govt going to keep females from having sex? from throwing herself down a flight of stairs? eating properly? keep her from taking drugs? where does the force stop? and why?
Did the mother have any control or choice over the baby being conceived in her womb? Most of the time: ABSOLUTELY. But even if she didn't, it still does not change the fact that the baby is innocent of any crimes and therefore does not deserve death.
The fact that babies (live human beings) come into reality in a temporary state of dependence upon the mother is just a metaphysical fact of reality which cannot -- and should not -- be evaded. All human adults (and most human teens) know this, and they know what causes it. They are facts of reality. No human should be put to death for the sin of existing -- which is exactly what abortion is.
Making abortion (killing an innocent human) illegal does not make the mother responsible for caring for any random people, and it does not make her responsible for caring for that specific person (in her womb) for an indefinite period of time. It only means that she must provide the bare-minimum for survival for the innocent human who, by the nature of reality (not by it's own choice) is temporarily dependent upon her, until such time that she can put the child up for adoption.
If my husband (or wife, bless this fcked up century and country) comes home from war a vegetable, or a quadriplegic, I can murder him/her?
You are not required to give up your property or your blood... but the cells, tissues and blood of the unborn child are not yours. They have the child's genetic pattern, not yours.
You invited the child into your body when you invited the penis into your body to deposit his sperm which was not part of your body into your body.
Let females have all the sex their vaginas can tolerate, I don't care. But if they want to legally be able to murder the child they create, then I demand the right to murder illegal aliens.
If you get pregnant, throw yourself down a flight of stairs. But don't be surprised if you end up like the soldier who shot his own toe off...
The government doesn't require you to act. It requires you to not act.
Your comment mixes two concepts. "legally" (force) and moral. Your last premise implies duty. The moral question is complicated and I fall on the side of the living. The fetus cannot survive until a certain point without living person. It begs the argument of extremes, because on that test the moral "obligation" of the pregnant woman will break the premise if the woman dies in childbirth. Who do you save? the fetus or the woman?
Godwins Law
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin...
The viewpoint I'm drawing from the "right to abort" crowd is the acknowledgement there is a life being taken, and that it's their right to kill it if they view it as unworthy of life by their personal subjective criteria, such as viewing the life as a "parasite". Nope, doesn't sound a thing like Nazi Germany to me. My apologies!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unwort...
When it has a complete HUMAN GENETIC SEQUENCE.
It's human when it has a human genetic sequence. Human gene sequence = human.
My position requires no proof; when a female thinks its pregnant, it can go to a geneticist and verify whether the creature growing within it has a complete human genetic sequence, or if it's a space alien parasite from a movie.
If it turns out to be a space alien parasite, or a german shepherd, then there should be no legal obstacle to aborting it.
if it has a complete human genetic sequence, then it is human and its rights are as protected as are the rights of an illegal alien invader. More protected, probably, since the Constitution doesn't protect the rights of non-Citizens - non-guests.
Read the rest of the statement after the semi-colon.
Check your premises.
"When a female thinks its pregnant, it can go to a geneticist and verify whether the creature growing within it has a complete human genetic sequence, or if it's a space alien parasite from a movie." Why do you refer to a female as it instead of she? My experience is that anyone who wants to dehumanize other humans does so by making them objects not living thinking people.
I'm all for consistency; if I can't murder illegal aliens because I find them inconvenient and funny looking, then someone else can't kill a child they created because s/he is funny looking and inconvenient.
I have a "choice" to kill an illegal alien or not to kill an illegal alien. That doesn't make me pro-or-anti-choice; that makes me either pro-murderer or non-murderer.
Why would I have ever read Camus?
Do you oppose equal application of the law or not? Why should some people be allowed to kill other people with premeditation, and others not?
I demand equal protection of the law; if women can conspire and butcher innocent children who've done them no harm, then I should be allowed to conspire and butcher illegal aliens who've indirectly done me much harm, and remind me of that harm every freaking time I try to have a McChicken sandwich.
I'm very much pro population explosion. We're going to need a *lot* of people to colonize the other planets and eventually the planets circling other stars.
Btw, the population of the United States is not sustaining itself, particularly the caucasian population.
See, if we were to blindly follow nature, then the Gulch would be run by an autocrat and his oligarchy, with most of the population being serfs. When the tribe became too large for the Gulch to sustain them "naturally", there would be internal conflict and the 2nd most alpha male would lead part of the tribe elsewhere, forming a new tribe.
The whole point is Man can conquer nature. Once people get beyond the Malthusian trap, the population can triple-we have the ability to feed everyone. Governments get in the way, people themselves get in the way depending on their philosophy-but we have the ability. The population has grown 100 fold since its inception. It is the welfare state which will drive the population away at some point. Drove me away.
Uhm... you're quite mistaken about tribalism not taking root here. Hatfields and McCoys? You do remember that little mid-19th century bruhahah between North and South? Maybe you watched an episode of The Waltons? You don't really think the conflicts between the States delegates during the War of Independence were purely, rationally about economics?
Without our tribal nature, there's no point to having States, counties, municipalities... or nations.
We are in agreement that Man can overcome his nature. But, Man IS instinctively tribal.
We weren't "historically" tribal... tribalism is in our bloodline going back millions of years.
Whether there's a need for tribalism or not... it exists.
There's no point in arguing with the irrational; this discussion is ended.
Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.
Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” Virtue of Selfishness
"An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history." Galt's Speech
I am not irrational
How did our brain and biochemical systems evolve from other forms and yet lose all trace of instinct, even though we retain the brain structures of earlier forms?
No, it's irrational to think we are a unique species without some proof that we were plunked down on this planet by space aliens and therefore have no relation to all other mamalian species.
more on their instincts than on their reason.
Since then, however, our brains have grown
dramatically especially our cerebral cortex.
This expanded capacity allows us to process
more complex data input than our smaller-brained
relatives are capable of. Ergo we have no need
for instincts. Try this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...
Man has instincts like every other animal.
It's why whenever I treat an obnoxious woman like an 'equal' (an obnoxious man) I've got 17 million men offering to knock my block off.
From Dictionary.com:
in·stinct
2 [in-stingkt]
adjective
1.
filled or infused with some animating principle (usually followed by with ): instinct with life.
2.
Obsolete. animated by some inner force.
Origin:
1530–40; < Latin instinctus excited, roused, inspired, past participle of *insting(u)ere; see instinct1
From Merriam-Webster Online:
1in·stinct
noun \ˈin-ˌstiŋ(k)t\
: a way of behaving, thinking, or feeling that is not learned : a natural desire or tendency that makes you want to act in a particular way
: something you know without learning it or thinking about it
: a natural ability
A list of possible human instincts:
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/~port/teach/20...
That's nature for you. You want nature? Fine; do away with ALL laws against murder. Allowing women to murder and preventing men from murdering is a complete violation of the Constitution.
Although I suspect that you really mean "live and let me (or someone else) kill the unborn baby" -- which sort of evades the issue... and changes the subject. Did you read the post??
Stop changing the subject. This is not about world population, or the ability to raise a child. This is about the morality of murdering a child. Plain and simple.
A theocracy is a totalitarian rule of force over all of life, based on theological convictions.
I am talking about individual rights -- which is about as far removed from a theocracy as you could get.
"If it was illegal, it would happen anyway". I suppose there is no need for laws against murder or theft then, either. Are you an anarchist? Or are you just changing the subject repeatedly because you've realized that you might be wrong on this abortion issue?
Roe v Wade was a bad decision arrived at through the wrong conclusions.
We're getting a theocracy anyway; the Green theocracy where we all have to worship the Earth.
Funny how this "right to control her body" decision doesn't apply to seatbelts or health insurance...
I can't believe you're raising the false premise of the population bomb. This isn't the 60s, I would have thought people would be more aware by now.
The Chinese 'struggle' with that problem because they had an all-but-forced breeding program for years. The Chinese 'struggle' with that problem because they've been a totalitarian state keeping their populace in poverty as a result. Now that the standard of living is rising, the population growth rate will drop, as it did in the U.S. and Europe.
But, this is okay. It's out of its host's body, the host can go on with her life and leave the unwanted parasite to die.
http://twitchy.com/2013/10/17/ny-daily-n...
Again this doesn't apply to your argument, because if a human kills another human that still counts as an interaction. How does that sound?
However, the idea that rights only *exist* in a social context makes right contingent on social context (and therefore subjective), no matter how you slice it. It would be more appropriate to say that the right to property would be primarily irrelevant (and potentially not discovered) apart from a social context, but that does not mean that it did not exist. I, alone, am *right* to live my life, to own my property, and to do as I see fit -- whether I ever encounter another person or not.
This is the problem which many Objectivists make in interpreting reality through their epistemology. We may come to discover certain things in reality (like rights) through experience (interaction with others), etc... but that experience in no way determines the nature of the reality being discovered.