RoR: Forum

OK, Roger, you make a plausible case. The course of Rand's thought in the period 1968-1974 makes for a fascinating study, especially given the sometime influence of Henry Mark Holzer, founder of the Institute for Animal Rights Law and a noted advocate for animal "rights," retarded "rights." and fetus "rights." I disagree with your interpretation of the neurophysiological evidence, and I read the reasoning in Roe v Wade as more political compromise than reality-grounded law, but given the influence of Holzer, a lawyer, during this period, Rand indeed may have given it more weight than it deserves. In any case, thank you for drawing my attention to the latter. To be continued after more study...

Post 21

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 9:49am

Trouble with Rand's earlier view is that even children are dependent on others for many years, which certainly does not make them subject to being killed at will by their parents. The crucial issue is when does a being of volitional consciousness begin its life and around the 24th week is the biologically correct answer. Sure, the level of consciousness is but minimal, but then infants, too, exhibit very low levels when compared to other animals that are used in scientific experiments, and often killed. The issue is when the actual capacity, however minimally exercised, emerges and it does so with the development of the cerebral cortex. Of course, there will be gray areas so individual cases may vary somewhat--just as when someone passes adolescence or becomes old. We are not talking geometry here.

Post 22

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 3:57pm

Tibor - you write, "around the 24th week is the biologically correct answer."

Have you first-hand knowledge? Have you ever done research in neurophysiology? What is your grounding for asserting what "the correct answer" is?

At least when Ayn Rand could no longer ask Robert Efron to brief her on the biology, she limited herself to saying that "one may argue" about the issue. You should know better than to assert a "biologically correct answer" with which people who have done research in neurophysiology would disagree.

My own position is that before the criminalization of late-term abortion can be morally justified, one must be able to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the fetus is in fact conscious before birth. And based on my own study of the relevant biological and cognitive science, with the background of a master's thesis in neurophysiology and a doctoral dissertation in cognitive psychology, I judge that, at this time, one cannot demonstrate a volitional consciousness until some weeks after birth.

Post 23

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:07pm

Good - glad someone caught that error...

Post 24

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 4:23pm

Adam, if that's your position, then is it OK to kill a baby hours after its birth? If not, why not?

Post 25

Tuesday, November 8, 2005 - 5:02pm

Pete,

In a culture whose deity is often represented as a newborn infant, this is not a question to be answered without (at minimum) the benefit of tenure.

As Ayn Rand wrote, birth has the benefit, in the context of the philosophy of law, of being an objectively observable milestone - a limit on when the development of an independent consciousness can first begin. Until we have a better objective milestone of the development of consciousness, it will have to do.

Post 26

Wednesday, November 9, 2005 - 1:18am