RoR: Forum

Speaking of question begging, I remember a statement by Nathaniel Branden at a lecture he was giving back in the '60's before his break with Ayn Rand. He said that abortion isn't murder, because a woman has property rights over the contents of her own body.

It wasn't until much later that I realized the problem with that argument. A woman has property rights over the contents of her own house. Does that mean that she has the right to kill its occupants, who happen to be her children? No, because her children have a right to life. If the occupant were a mouse, then, of course, she would have a right to kill it, because it does not have a right to life. So whether or not she has a right to kill any of the occupants of her property depends on whether or not it has a right to life. It cannot be denied the right to life, simply because it occupies her property.

Now returning to Branden's argument, the same reasoning would apply to a woman's right to kill the embryo or fetus that is occupying her body. Whether or not she has a right to kill it depends on whether or not it has a right to life. We beg the question if we assume that it has no right to life, simply because she has property rights over the contents of her body.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/01, 9:37am)

Post 21

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 12:31pm

No one in my neck of the woods begs any questions (unless you consider acceptance of one's existence such but that would be a mistake). A fetus lacks the faculty/capacity that is a necessary feature of being a human being. What would that be? The cerebral cortex that enables exercising the powers of the mind, of (volitional) conceptual consciousness. This emerges at about the 23rd week. (Since this isn't geometry, it's like with most biological phenomena, there are individual differences--as for example between the reaching of adulthood of one person versus another. Demarcations are soft, not hard as in geometry.)

Post 22

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 1:23pm

It may emerge then, but that doesn't mean is functionable - the dickens is in the detailing, so to speak [ to use an analogy, a fully finished motor in a car is of no use if there is no functioning connection of all its sidereal components - and even a recognizable motor may be yet lacking spark plugs or connecting wires, etc], and it would still need turning the key to kick it over......

Post 23

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 2:06pm

Bill,

I have a hard time imagining Nathaniel Branden making the logical error you describe. He has always been in agreement with Rand that there can be no conflict between individual rights - no such thing as a right to violate a right. I assume he started from the premise that a fetus did not possess individual rights and THEREFORE the woman's ownership of her body was the deciding principle.

In a letter to Harry Browne, in 1996, who was opposed to abortion, Branden said, "I don't think the question is whether or not "life begins at conception." Let us agree that it does. I think the question is: Is a fetus a human being? To that question, I believe we must answer no. Otherwise, we are confusing a potentiality with actuality. The most you can say about a fetus is that it is a potential human being. What you have in the moment of conception, or for some months thereafter, is not a human being, not a person--and so destroying it is not murder."

Post 24

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 8:13pm

I am a bit surprised to read so much about taking a poll about various topics. Especially on an Objectivist site--the proposition that a human being exists at conception is either true or false, no in between. While there can be some gray areas about such matters, the law of the excluded middle still applies. Who cares about a poll? Do you check with your neighbors or the population of the US or the world or the Atlas Society when you answer the question, "When does a human being come into existence?" I don't--I tend to check with biologists and then figure it out for myself as best as I can. Sure I use the Socratic method of discussing controversial matters, but in the end I land on the best answer I can find.

Post 25

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 8:31pm

Mr. Machan,

I think that your mark of when a fetus becomes a human makes sense. Setting humanity at conception is unworkable and does not comport with our knowledge of what "human" looks like, and birth is fraught with brutal implications, however:

You acknowledge that the demarcations are "soft". You seem to support the idea that post-23rd week, the abortion of that fetus would be homicide. Do you believe that the law is almost forced to draw a "bright line" and simply declare this to be the point that abortions are banned?

And would you call someone who has an abortion past the 23rd week a murderer?

Post 26

Monday, December 1, 2008 - 8:40pm

And what if the woman has a miscarriage?? who and how to tell if 'natural' or determined???

Post 27

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 3:03pm

Steve, you said

I have a hard time imagining Nathaniel Branden making the logical error you describe. He has always been in agreement with Rand that there can be no conflict between individual rights - no such thing as a right to violate a right. I assume he started from the premise that a fetus did not possess individual rights and THEREFORE the woman's ownership of her body was the deciding principle.

Well, if the fetus does not possess individual rights, then that itself is sufficient to justify abortion. Citing a woman's ownership over her body, while certainly true, would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? -- unless the point is that the fetus does not possess individual rights, because it is not an independent individual, but simply part of the mother's body, but if so, then that needs to be stated explicitly as the reason. Citing a woman's ownership over her body is not enough.

In a letter to Harry Browne, in 1996, who was opposed to abortion, Branden said, "I don't think the question is whether or not "life begins at conception." Let us agree that it does. I think the question is: Is a fetus a human being? To that question, I believe we must answer no. Otherwise, we are confusing a potentiality with actuality. The most you can say about a fetus is that it is a potential human being. What you have in the moment of conception, or for some months thereafter, is not a human being, not a person--and so destroying it is not murder."

Right, that seems to be the standard Objectivist position on abortion. A person is not a human being until he or she is born, which would justify even late-term abortions, although, as Rand acknowledges, these are risky and therefore not advisable.

As she states in her article "Of Living Death" (reprinted in The Voice of Reason), An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." (p. 58)

Elsewhere, she states: "The fact of birth is an absolute -- that is, up to that moment, the child is not an independent, living organism. It's part of the body of its mother. But at birth, a child is an individual, and has the rights inherent in the nature of a human individual." (Ayn Rand Answers, p. 126)

So, Objectivism doesn't recognize late-term abortion as in any way a violation of (fetal) rights, even though the procedure may pose a danger to the mother herself and not be worth the risk.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer on 12/02, 10:43pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 6:55pm

Rand was wrong on this, late term abortions, by her own understanding of what is a "human being."

Post 29

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 10:27pm

Rand was wrong on this, late term abortions, by her own understanding of what is a "human being."

I don't think so. Remember, by her own understanding, a human being is an independent individual (i.e., not part of the mother's body), so according to Rand, an offspring doesn't become a human being -- a human individual -- until it is born. Before that, it is simply a potential human being and therefore not a rights-bearing person.

- Bill

Post 30

Tuesday, December 2, 2008 - 11:48pm

This is a messy issue and I don't see any clear answers. Before 23 weeks the fetus is not human enough to have rights - at least that much is clear.

Sometime after that, but before coming to term, it becomes viable - capable of living separately and possesses a mind. But how early the baby is capable of living separately is dependent more on the state of technology than biology.

Until the baby is a separate being it doesn't make much sense to talk of the baby taking action - and what use is choice - the well-spring of rights - without the capacity to act on a choice. Rights are about action. The baby could be said to own its own life, and hence have the right to continue actions like breathing, but since it is totally dependent on parental care to survive, there is very little sense in which it could use reason, choice and action to support its life.

Young children have individual rights, but we all agree that they don't have an adult's liberty - they are under a degree of control by their parents. It is a messy issue and biology isn't drawing a clear line anywhere.

Post 31

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 12:39am

Steve,

At least this much is true, while in utero, the offspring is still part of the mother's body. What you have is one independent organism -- the mother -- with another dependent organism -- the fetus -- occupying it and living parasitically off her life-support system. Since the fetus is an inextricable part of the mother's body, if she owns her body, then she owns the fetus and can abort it, if she chooses.

- Bill

Post 32

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 12:39am

If independence had such a vital role in all this, a human being wouldn't come into existence until about age 25 or so (judging by some of my own kids). And with current technology, biological independence is possible much earlier than birth.

Post 33

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 4:14am

Rights, Goodness, and Coordination

Here are my biological and legal information on abortion

and my moral reasoning (as of 1984, but apparently

things remain the same in these main factors and rules).

Viability and Liberty

Contracts to Full Term

Post 34

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 4:44am

When you say, "Since the fetus is an inextricable part of the mother's body," you are stating something quite dubious since with current biotechnology the inextricability is not a fact. Many very young fetuses are removed and nourished to infancy independently of the mother (or the original mother). Whether something is a human being, then, doesn't have to do with the relationship but with the identity and properties of the being in question.

Post 35

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 9:27am

If independence had such a vital role in all this, a human being wouldn't come into existence until about age 25 or so (judging by some of my own kids). And with current technology, biological independence is possible much earlier than birth.

Rand meant physically independent, not financially independent.

When you say, "Since the fetus is an inextricable part of the mother's body," you are stating something quite dubious since with current biotechnology the inextricability is not a fact. Many very young fetuses are removed and nourished to infancy independently of the mother (or the original mother). Whether something is a human being, then, doesn't have to do with the relationship but with the identity and properties of the being in question.

By "inextricable part of the mother's body," I meant biologically attached to her, such that its separation would require surgical intervention. In other words, I meant it in the sense that a kidney is an inextricable part of one's body. If the fetus can be removed in a viable state, without endangering the mother's health or well-being, fine. If it cannot, then she is us under no obligation to carry it to term.

- Bill

Post 36

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 10:50am

Tibor,

In post 32 you said, "If independence had such a vital role in all this, a human being wouldn't come into existence until about age 25 or so..." (Jung would have said age 40 :-)

This does have a role in the issue of rights. Even though children are human, they are treated as if they did not have the full set of human rights. If a child has the full exercise of the full set of human rights, then they could leave home at age 5 if they wanted and their parents could not, ethically, interfere. Clearly, a child does not have the full exercise of their rights. This tells us that the acquisition of rights, or the exercise of those rights is acquired over the period of development that culminates in the capacity to live independently.

There are a couple of issues here. If we are talking about human nature, as opposed to this or that individual, then we would be talking about the human capacity for independence (e.g., I was on my own at age 16, but had circumstances been different, I might have left home earlier, or later. When are humans, by nature, capable of leaving home?) We have a lot of law on the subject (age of majority, emancipation, etc.) but not a clear understanding of the individual rights that would justify those laws.

Do the rights adhere at the same time the fetus becomes human - whenever that is - but the exercise of those rights are acquired in stages? Or are the rights themselves acquired in stages?

While a child, the parent or guardian has a responsibility to the child that is commensurate with the rights the child is still not able to exercise. For each restriction on the child's liberty, the parent has a responsibility to provide what the child is not yet able to provide with their own actions and to aid the child in maturing towards being independent.

This is a messy business because we are talking about positive rights when it comes to children. Their right to parental care. I have no problem with seeing that as a form of a contract taken on by the parent at birth (or sometime during the pregnancy where the baby acquired its first right) - but child's rights, no matter how you frame them, are different.

Post 37

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 10:59am

Yes, the rights of children deserves special discussion but it isn't all that troubling. I have written about this in one of my books, I cannot recall which off hand (I am at school in my office).

Post 38

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 11:15am

Tibor,

If you recall the title of your book where you discussed child's rights, please let me know, I'd like to read that.

I'm not troubled over this - rather, I find it an interesting way to deepen my understanding of rights, as such - kind of a mental exercise in this area.

Post 39

Wednesday, December 3, 2008 - 12:19pm