Abortion versus Selfishness: Obstruction by Periferals

A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXIII-- June 16, 2004

Abortion versus Selfishness: Obstruction by Periferals
G. Stolyarov II

http://www.geocities.com/rationalargumentator/obstruction.html

A brief time ago, in tribute to Ronald Reagan’s wit and humor as “The Great Communicator,” I posted a statement of his on SoloHQ.com. It reads, “I've noticed that everyone who is for abortion has already been born.” I was prepared for argument and criticism of the statement, given that I would be faced with an audience generally accepting of Ayn Rand’s pro-abortion stance. Yet what I had received greatly exceeded my expectations. An example of this is a response by one, Ms. Elizabeth Kanabe: “…to comment on the quote, it's horrible. It's like saying ‘I noticed that everyone here that opposes taxes still pays them...’ or ‘I notice that everyone here that supports the right to suicide hasn't committed suicide themselves...’. You had no choice in being born, and you wouldn't have ever known it if you weren't born! I can support the right to choose an abortion, just as I support my parents rights to have aborted me if they had wanted to! I see no conflict there.”

I would like to focus on this statement, since it reveals some unsettling implications. Objectivism, the filosofy originated by Ayn Rand, holds that the life of the individual is the highest value that individual can pursue; nothing can trump that value. All of the individual’s rational and moral actions ultimately are derived from a single alternative: the choice to live or to die, with the choice to live emerging with triumfant consistency. This selfishness is derived from man’s nature as a volitionally conscious entity; man has the power to choose, to be aware of his surroundings, to act on his awareness, and to pursue goals. Man possesses the faculty of reason to accurately interpret the external world. Thus, he is best capacitated to use this reason in the preservation of his self. I consider myself a selfish individualist in this respect; I would not wish to perish for the sake of anyone or anything; nothing to me is of such value as my very acts of being and thinking. There are other selfish men who may disagree and put their lives on the line for the sake of quality of life; he who defends liberty against criminals and tyrants, he who risks his life to save his child, he who commits suicide in prison rather than be subjected to torture or a humiliating execution at the hands of unjust captors, all voluntarily risk their existence because, absent that risk, they would be unable to live the life proper to man. But there are no consistently selfish men who would grant others the right to kill them while they were in a perfectly healthy, comfortable, value-affirming condition.

Yet Ms. Kanabe does precisely the above; she concedes the right of her parents to have killed her very self while she was still in the womb. She has admitted that something, some prerogative, exists that would trump her own very right to life! What has she sacrificed that right of life to? A woman’s “right” to an abortion. Nevertheless, selfishness is a fundamental concept in Objectivism; it is the foundation of the Objectivist ethics, the subject of Rand’s novel, The Fountainhead, and her book of treatises, The Virtue of Selfishness. On the other hand, the abortion issue is immensely periferal in Rand’s thought. She had devoted a single paragraf to the matter in the 1973 essay, Censorship: Local and Express. She had written more thoroughly on related issues, such as birth control, but she mentioned abortion no further. (There exists the equivalent of a page on it in Leonard Peikoff’s Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but this is nowhere near a thorough filosofical treatment.) Nevertheless, SoloHQ members and numerous other Objectivists, especially of Peikoff’s closed-system denomination, treat abortion as a sacred cow. The consequence of the mere posting of an ironical commentary by Reagan was a string of accusations that my views were “anti-freedom,” “pseudo-Objectivist,” “religious-conservative,” and only “dressed up to sound Objectivist.” This amount of vehemence is atypical of an issue so remote from the core of a filosofy and indeed so insubstantial in the grand scheme of this filosofy’s structure, a truth that the filosofy’s very founder recognized via the time allocation she had devoted the subject. Despite all this, Ms. Kanabe is prepared to renounce her own right to exist and to tacitly but explicitly have given others the right to terminate her, ruling an extreme periferal of greater importance than a profound fundamental.

I do not think that Ms. Kanabe rejects selfishness explicitly; rather, her consistent advocacy of selfishness with respect to the abortion issue has been obstructed by her all-too-consistent advocacy of abortion. This can only be so since the periferal stance conflicts with the fundamental one. Such a situation can be termed obstruction by periferals and occurs whenever a judgment on an issue far from the foundational truths in a filosofical hierarchy is held rigidly and carried to its full implications in a manner conflicting with the fundamentals of the same hierarchy. The only reason why the abortionist stance’s consistent interpretation clashes with consistent selfishness is because selfishness and abortion are incompatible. As Ayn Rand stated, far many more times than she had written in support of abortion, it is impossible for a truly selfish man to violate in others the same prerogatives that he himself has; the mentalities of her who is sacrificed and her who is the beneficiary of the sacrifice are but two sides of the same coin. If one is not prepared to acknowledge the right to life in all others, one will inevitably find one’s own claim to existence conditional at best, since questions of fundamental rights are answered universally for all men by virtue of their possession of volitional consciousness. Since it can only take place if the parents do not exercise their “legitimate right” to abort a fetus, the life of all men (who are all past fetuses), becomes a privilege, not a right, granted by the parents’ wish to grant it and no natural, universal, incontrovertible law. Since Ms. Kanabe was given this privilege, she may comfortably retain it for the rest of her life and proclaim, from the safe haven of the already born, the lack of necessity to give that privilege to others, seeing as giving privileges is not an obligation. Ironically enough, this is precisely the mentality that Ronald Reagan aptly identified and challenged in his statement. Nevertheless, in exercising this mindset, though she has not undermined her life at present, she has indeed damaged the right to life per se and renounced, unintentionally, the keystone principle of selfishness.

A year ago, discussing the abortion issue with another pro-life libertarian, I brought forth the observation that many of the persons who embrace abortion employ similar arguments to justify not merely voluntary euthanasia, but the involuntary termination of comatose or extremely ill patients at the authorization of doctors or families, a clear violation of those patients' right to life. The response I received was a most enlightening quote from Aristotle, who seemed to foreshadow the notion of obstruction by periferals by two millennia: "The least initial deviation from the truth gets multiplied later a thousandfold."

If obstruction by periferals is the problem, what is the solution? It is to cease treating the entire package of ideas as presented by a filosofy’s author as sacred, unquestionable scripture. An adherent of a filosofical system must retain fidelity to its fundamentals and apply those to periferal matters. When fundamentals and periferals conflict, it is the periferals that must be rejected. Great and ingenious individuals are not perfect and err in certain ideas, Ayn Rand included. Rand’s error was slight, compared to her immense accuracy in the discovery of filosofical fundamentals and their generally consistent application. Moreover, Ayn Rand did not dwell on her error, a lesson that many of her intellectual heirs have not learned. Instead, the latter have been known to propose a disagreement on periferals to be equivalent to treason to the entire Objectivist system. In the application of straightforward fundamentals to more complex and intertwined periferals, however, individuals of fullest integrity may often disagree on their conclusions. There is no reason why this disagreement cannot be accepted, argued, and learned from rather than outright and cursorily rejected as a vile attempt at smuggling ideas or corrupting a skyscraper perfect to the rusty nail that hangs off the sill of the 39th floor window.

Most importantly, it is important to recognize that rational, persuasive, civil discourse, not excommunications, emotional agitation, spite, and name-hurling, is key to resolving obstruction by periferals. I may not consider the abortionists’ views consistent with selfishness and the right to life, but I do not forget the fact that this inconsistency on their part is unintentional and does not undermine their worth as thinkers or their desire for consistent adherence to Objectivist principles. They, too, may not think my anti-abortion stance to be a consistent application of selfishness and the right to life, and are welcome to try and convince me, as some had already undertaken. Even if we end up on opposite sides of the issue at the conclusion of the debate, we still gain something from a constructive exchange of ideas. Moreover, we are Objectivists nonetheless and share a far deeper, fundamental commitment to the right to life, and, hopefully, the right of each man to independently use his own mind and his own reason to form his conclusions.

Post 1

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 2:37pm

Hello, Mr. Stolyarov.

>>I may not consider the abortionists’ views consistent with selfishness and the right to life, but I do not forget the fact that this inconsistency on their part is unintentional and does not undermine their worth as thinkers or their desire for consistent adherence to Objectivist principles.<<

It may be unintentional because for some it is reactionary. There is a pattern to certain inconsistencies these people have on abortion, suicide, euthanasia, divorce, etc. They are reactionaries to traditional religious authority on these matters. They only comprehend these issues as a dichotomy between the religious and the secular, and it is more important for them to be seen in opposition to religion than to be correct.

This is why you are accused of being a stalking horse for religion even though not one whit of your arguments stems from religious principles. They cannot recognize the merits of a secular argument that happens to agree with traditional religious authority, because they are wedded to their peculiar dichotomy and cannot perceive that anything other than a religious argument can exist against abortion etc. Therefore, you will not get through to them regardless of the merits of your argument.

Regards,
Bill

Post 2

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 4:17pm

When I used to be a Catholic, I was "pro-life" because I believed a fetus had a soul, and that to abort a pregnancy is equivalent to murder. Having been there, I can see that this is a belief that theists can be sincere about. I do not fault the advocates against abortion for their passion. Even now, it is difficult for me to defend someone who is too irresponsible to practice sex safe, as it is difficult to defend someone for their right to smoke pot. Having said that, I would like to think that I (and the majority of Objectivists) was independent enough to know that my conversion to a pro-choice position is not a reaction against religion, but in understanding the difference between a potential human being and an actual human being. There are many theists who are pro-choice, after all. The majority of Americans are Christians, yet the majority of Americans are also pro-choice, so I do not see the debate on abortion to be a dichotomy between theists and atheists.

Like Ayn Rand, I regard religion as a form of philosophy, and there are three aspects of religion I happen to like. First, I like the idea tha the human soul is sacred (note I consider the soul to be a figurative symbol, not a literal reality). Second, and as a corollary to the first, the salvation of the soul depends on thinking and doing what is right and good. Third, that what is right and good is not subjective, but absolute, and though we can love the sinner, we should hate the sin.

It is interesting you like to think of an Objectivist as sympathetic to the left, for if I were to argue with a liberal, the liberal would assume I am a conservative Republican (I have yet to be called me a flaming liberal!). I said and wrote before that I consider conservatives the lesser of two evils, so to speak, but conservatives and libertarians are not the same thing. I think many people on SOLO criticize Mr. Stolyarov (including me on occasion) because, though he happens to agree with Objectivists on the majority of economic issues, his positions on social issues come from a rather different understanding of essential Objectivist principles from the one most of us have. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but social issues are where libertarians differ with Republicans and conservatives.

Of course, your statement does apply to some SOLO members who do, in fact, have a bad taste for religion. I know of one who never fails to mention how religion is the culprit to whatever social ill you can name. I do not have a hatred of religion as such, and I still find discussing and reading about mythology and religion fascinating, but I am sure you know by now that, in a site that advocates Objectivism, anti-religious sentiments are to be expected and par for the course.

I heard there is a group of Christian Objectivists. Have you ever interacted with them?

Post 3

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 6:19pm

Byron,

I heard there is a group of Christian Objectivists. Have you ever interacted with them?

There used to be a WEB site for "Christian Objectivists" which went defunct sometime in the last year or so. I do not think there is an extant organization or group calling itself Christian Objectivist now. There are quite a few people who call themselves both Christian and Objectivist. I believe there has to be some mental compartmentalization to hold these two contradictory ideologies simultaneously, however.

Regi

Post 4

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 6:24pm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/christianobjectivists/

Post 5

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 7:27pm

There is indeed an association for Christian Objectivists. It's called the ARI. ;-)

Post 6

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 7:45pm

G., Bill, Byron,

I want to address just these two sentences in Mr. Stolyarov's argument:

Yet Ms. Kanabe does precisely the above; she concedes the right of her parents to have killed her very self while she was still in the womb. She has admitted that something, some prerogative, exists that would trump her own very right to life!

Rights pertain only to choice and action. There is no such thing as a right to have. The right to life means, one has a right to choose and do whatever they can to live, and no one may rightly interfere in those choices or actions. A right to life is not a claim on the life of others to supply you with what you need to live, before or after birth.

The unborn, until they are born, are essentially parasitic. They cannot choose or do anything to sustain their own lives. They cannot even supply themselves oxygen. They have no rights until they are born, and can at least supply themselves air by breathing. Human protoplasm is not a human being. Nobody is in a womb.

All Ms. Kanabe granted her parents is the right they already had to live their lives as they chose. If her parents had intercourse an hour earlier or an hour later than the hour that actually led to the conception resulting in Ms. Kanabe, would that choice, (which would just as effectively precluded her existence) have deprived her of her right to life? Conception is no guarantee of birth. Until one is actually born, it is impossible to know certainly there will be a birth.

An abortion does not mean someone who would otherwise be born, will not be. No doubt it means someone who would probably be born will not be, but it is not a certainty. Of course, in Ms. Kanabe's case we do know an abortion would have prevented someone who would otherwise be born from being born; but then, we also know that about a change in the hour of intercourse as well. If here parents had decided to have one more drink before going to bed, there would not now be a Ms. Kanabe.

In both cases, the knowledge is after the fact. Before the fact, there is no such knowledge, and no moral obligation can be based on what is not known.

Regi

Post 7

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 7:46pm

G., Bill, Byron,

I love children, and I have lots of them, although none of them are children now. But I have grandchildren who are still children, and some of them are also nearly grown. I expect it will not be too long before I have great-grandchildren.

Some people really do not like children, and some who might like them are incapable of having them, at least the natural way. Most people do like children, however. It is human nature to love children, it's why they are so cute and entertaining. It is almost impossible to see a child without being moved.

I know not all have the same experience, but I have never seen a little girl I did not instantly love. I adore them all, and just seeing them and hearing them is a pleasure I cannot be described. Little boys fascinate me. I could easily waste a day talking to a little boy. About what? Whatever little boys talk about.

I admit, I'm not fond of groups of children, but find them all, as individuals, and all in different ways, charming.

Now this is all very subjective and you might wonder what it all has to do with abortion. Well, the obvious thing is, I am glad all of my children and grandchildren were born. For me the question of abortion does not come up. If there is an opportunity to bring another child into the world for me to love and enjoy, there is nothing worth more than that to me. Of course, this only works if one's wife is of the same mind, which I think it usually is, because I also think it is human nature to desire children. It is, after all, how we all got here. If it were human nature to dislike children, to not want them, to not enjoy them, it is unlikely we would be here to talk about it.

I really do love children and one of the things I especially enjoy is watching children enjoying themselves. But I know something both sad and true. Children brought into this world by those who neither desire or enjoy children seldom enjoy themselves. Children born to those who don't want them are more likely to have hellish lives than lives enjoyed as children ought to enjoy them.

As much as I love children and cannot imagine, for myself, even considering abortion, I can think of few things more hateful, especially toward children, than someone who would force those who neither desire children or care for them to have them.

I think abortion is a great mistake, made by those who probably make even worse mistakes; forcing those who choose abortion to bear those children is morally wrong.

This is my soft answer.

Regi

Post 8

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 8:10pm

Greetings, all.

Mr. Firehammer, thank you for a most thorough exposition concerning your views on children and your personal aversion to abortion. I congratulate you on a happy, stable family life and on extracting the maximum values from the people around you. I, too, like to interact with children, though I have none of my own. I especially like younger children, from ages 2 to 7, when they are not yet corrupted by popular culture, compulsory public education, or shady groups of peers. Their curiosity, earnestness, and enthusiasm are something every adult should strive for. I personally would not even consider having a child until I amass the immense wealth necessary to keep him/her essentially isolated from the cultural maleficence until he/she is endowed with a thorough understanding of the fundamental values of reason, liberty, and cultural decency (which can happen remarkably early, with proper guidance; the earlier children are taught concepts, the firmer those concepts remain for their entire lives. I wish I still had the almost instantaneous insight-making capacity I possessed as a little boy!). Yet, at the same time, I am not married, and stay true to the abstinence until marriage principle-- thus, the abortion issue would never be one that would involve me personally. Yet, there is a personal story in my family that I learned of when I was thirteen, visiting my maternal grandmother in a remote and impoverished Belarussian village.

In the Soviet Union, abortions were legal and easily attainable. My grandmother was an "enlightened" peasant and held a prestigious management position at the local collective farm. At the same time, she had to take care of two children, which, given the meager wages that were distributed evenly in the Soviet Union, often meant the children were deprived of many of the comforts of life (including almost any modern sanitation!) When my grandmother became pregnant again, she seriously considered an abortion, until, that is, her baby began to interact with her. It moved about in her womb, it kicked, it displayed a genuine personality, and my grandmother realized that it could be no other than a true human being, that she had no right to terminate it. Soon after, my mother was born. My mother was always an exemplary student, and managed to work her way up to the University of Minsk, working as one of the earliest professional computer programmers. Imagine that: a young girl rising out of backward rural poverty into the most ultra-modern profession of her time! When she and my father moved to the United States during my childhood, her skills came to be in high demand, and she continued to send generous sums of money to my grandmother until her death. While the village around her lapsed into near-utter destitution due to the increasing neglect it received from the centralized system of government, my grandmother prospered for the remainder of her life, because of her one-time choice not to have an abortion.

Now, do not ever tell me that a child born to poor conditions cannot rise to live a happy, fulfilling life! The entire story of my ancestors has been permeated with just that!

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 9

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:10pm

Cameron,

Actually, ARI is filled with "Jewish Objectivists" -- they even display the Star of David on their web pages!

http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/
http://www.israelismoral.com/

-Logan

Post 10

Wednesday, June 16, 2004 - 9:57pm

Hi, Byron.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments to my little tirade. I appreciate that you took the time to understand that my complaint against certain Objectivists was not a blanket condemnation. As I mentioned before in this forum, I admire those folks who use the insights of Objectivism to live a principled life of independence, productivity, and integrity in the world as it imperfectly is -- as opposed to those who find the creed to be something they can shoehorn their prejudices into in order to cloak in rationality their sour bitching about things they will never change.

To the extent that Objectivism accurately provides us with answers to the human condition, its prescriptions for the good life are universally applicable to all us, regardless of religious belief (or the lack thereof). If Objectivism has got it right on a particular subject, then it's true for everyone on that point whether or not a person recognizes it as a principle of Objectivism. In other words, human nature exists and has norms that are objectively discernable; and Objectivism shines when it is accord with those facts. Thus, one who lives in pursuit of the fullness of human nature will lead an Objectivist life, whether he recognizes it as such. For that reason I suspect that I probably live a life truer to Objectivist principles than many self-identified Objectivists despite the fact that I'm a whim-worshipping mystic. ;)

I think you have caught on somewhat to where I'm coming from, hence your question: >>I heard there is a group of Christian Objectivists. Have you ever interacted with them?<<

No. I wouldn't have any interest in doing so. Even though as a Catholic I am taught that I should seek a philosophy to supplement my faith (Pope John Paul II's encyclical Ratio et Fides), hence I suppose that recipe could be "Christian Objectivist", I have serious reservations about Objectivism. As you know I have voiced my disagreement with the materialist bent of its metaphysics, though I see how some like Regi and Rodney initelligently avoid that black hole (by what I see as not strictly Objectivist, though provocative, means). Its epistemology is for me a mess. I can't make heads or tails of it, even though I KNOW I am an intelligent person. Its morality is basically sound as far as what we OUGHT to do, but I am not persuaded by self-interest as the WHY we should do the things we ought to do. If self-interest is the only consideration, then the "why" of Objectivist morality boils down to prudence -- and that isn't enough. As far as politics and aesthetics go, I'm probably more Objectivist than Rand herself. ;) Finally, there is the practical matter that sociologically the Objectivist community is much too mindlessly anti-religion for any worthwhile discourse to exist group to group. (Individually, that's certainly not the case.)

The bottom line, Byron, is that I am a conservative because I'm suspicious of any integrated system of thought that claims to provide the answer to everything. While I do believe everything has an answer, I am not so certain of the perfection of our reason that we can integrate all answers into a single universal truth ala "A=A". I believe this limitation in our comprehension of the truth to be part of reality. For the same reason the human animal can't run at the speed of light, the fleshly embodiment of its reason imposes real limits upon it. Therefore, to believe that I found the one sole principle that reveals all of reality to me is to believe something contrary to reality. That is why I do not subscribe to a philosophy like Objectivism, though I do admire those who use it to live the good life and find many of its principles to be valid in my own.

Regards,
Bill

Post 11

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 6:40am

Greetings.

I would like to respond further to Mr. Firehammer.

Mr. Firehammer: There is no such thing as a right to have.

Mr. Stolyarov: But there is the right to not have something taken away by force and without consent-- especially when that something is one's own life.

Mr. Firehammer: The unborn, until they are born, are essentially parasitic. They cannot choose or do anything to sustain their own lives. They cannot even supply themselves oxygen. They have no rights until they are born, and can at least supply themselves air by breathing. Human protoplasm is not a human being. Nobody is in a womb.

Mr. Stolyarov: A child, until about age two, is also entirely unable to sustain himself. He must be spoon-fed, carried held up as he tries to move about, and its every need attended to with far greater frequency than those of the fetus in the womb, who is in effect fed automatically and has its wastes disposed of via the umbilical cord without the mother's deliberate intervention. I am certain that you would not advocate the "right" to "abort" two-year-olds. Whether or not the entity has the ability to survive on its own is not the issue. The issue is that the parents had, through their own actions, brought about this entity's dependence on their care since conception, and this implies that the parents must exercise their parental obligation to raise the fetus/child into autonomy.

Mr. Firehammer: Conception is no guarantee of birth. Until one is actually born, it is impossible to know certainly there will be a birth.

Mr. Stolyarov: Actually, I must dissent here. Have you read "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion"? I consider conception an effective guarantee of the birth of an individual with a particular genetic code; absent deliberate human intervention or accidents of nature, this birth will inevitably and inexorably occur. I call this futuristic certainty.

Mr. Firehammer: Of course, in Ms. Kanabe's case we do know an abortion would have prevented someone who would otherwise be born from being born; but then, we also know that about a change in the hour of intercourse as well.

Mr. Stolyarov: There is a difference here in prerogative. Everyone has the choice not to conceive or to conceive whomever they wish by whatever consensual method, but, once they conceive someone (an entity, whose form of consciousness, though not its content, is dictated by its unique and irrepeatable genetic code), they are obliged to bring that particular being up into a state of independence. This is parental obligation, quite aptly summarized in my treatise on marriage. Why birth is seen as an arbitrary line where to draw the distinction between presence of parental responsibility and lack of it, I understand not.

Here is another story from my family that demonstrates the extremely arbitrary nature of birth as the defining moment of attaining humanity. My personality was already known well before that fact; I was unusually mobile within the womb and always demanded my personal space as I grew, even if I had to kick to get it (so I am told). As far as I am aware, my mother experienced a harder time with me than most pregnant mothers do with their children. I was also far more demanding than other children from the moment of my birth; I could outcry an entire room of infants, and, when my grandfather first heard me wailing from a distance, he could instantly recognize his descendant without ever having seen him. :) My speculation on this matter is that the infant's mind begins to take in information as soon as it begins to form; tabula rasa does exist at some stage, but it is a stage before birth-- simply because older children cannot remember these stages, just as they do not remember their first year of life-- this does not mean that tremendous amounts of information were not taken in during those stages.

Before the generation of the fetus's mind, the futuristic certainty argument still applies, and if a natural accident (or "natural abortion") should terminate the pregnancy, this is not the fault of the mother, but, like a divorce in a marriage, it is not something that should ever be treated as an expectation.

Mr. Firehammer: In both cases, the knowledge is after the fact. Before the fact, there is no such knowledge, and no moral obligation can be based on what is not known.

Mr. Stolyarov: There is certain knowledge before the fact; Ms. Kanabe's parents knew that her mother was pregnant with the child whose genetic code is particular and unique to Ms. Kanabe. They knew that, if they allowed Ms. Kanabe to continue to exist, she would exhibit volitional consciousness and be able to make judgments concerning issues such as this one. They knew that the responsibility for conceiving the being that would become Ms. Kanabe rested entirely with them. Simply because Ms. Kanabe was not able to make that judgment at that time (as she probably also was not at age three or five) does not mean that she cannot assert her right to have existed at all stages of her development.

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 12

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 7:08am

Hi, Regi.

>>This is my soft answer.<<

It is also a reasonable answer, even if I don't agree entirely. But I won't argue with you, probably for the same reason you posted your soft answer as opposed to your hard one. [Edit: Now that I've read the entire thread, I see that you did post your "hard" answer. I probably should read these things chronologically; not that it would change my point here.] The debate is old, and the positions, variations and all, are well-known. So, I don't think I'll learn anything new. Furthermore, I know I'm right. However, I despair of persuading anyone who doubts that I am. ;) In the end, there's no percentage for me in another abortion debate.

On top of all that, I find it a frustrating debate to have outside of the real world context in which nearly one of three pregnancies have been terminated over the past generation. Arguing over the pristine principles underlying one's position on abortion is so arid and sterile against such an ugly background. There is something fundamentally disfunctional in American society when the practice has become so commonplace. Even if one refuses to recognize the unborn as human being, it is still a life -- and life is a wonderful thing. Its wholesale slaughter, about thirty million or more since '73, for the most venal or pathetic of reasons is disheartening.

Moreover, it shows what a fraud (if I may take the liberty to use that word metaphorically ;) feminism is. Abortion has been pushed by feminists as the equalizer between men and women. Of course, abortion does not actually alter the basic fact that women and not men become pregnant, and so only women must face the violence of the procedure. Meanwhile, men have a woman's "right to choose" as a ready out for themselves when they choose to evade responsibility for the life they have created. So instead of giving women the upper hand, abortion has only stengthened the men's hand.

Whether or not one thinks that abortion should be a matter for the law, it is an evasion of reality to not recognize that its commonality is a sympton of a sickness in our culture.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 6/17, 7:16am)

Post 13

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:10am

Bill,

You said: For that reason I suspect that I probably live a life truer to Objectivist principles than many self-identified Objectivists despite the fact that I'm a whim-worshipping mystic.

I do not know too much about you other than what I have read here in SOLO, but I suspect there is some truth to what you said. It is for that reason I try not to judge someone based on the philosophies they ponder over a cup of Starbucks coffee. I base it on their actions. If you are, as you said, a successful entrepreneur and family man, I can respect that over someone who, say, has read "Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" enough times to know it by heart, but has yet to accomplish anything significant in their life (I do not count getting an "A" in college to be a significant achievement . . . then again, I am biased against "college pukes" ). I have said before that, though I admire Ayn Rand more than any other modern writer, I have more admiration for non-Objectivists like Bill Gates, Thomas Edison, and Leonardo Da Vinci.

But enough of this love fest. It would be too damaging to my social approval and self-esteem to associate with a whim-worshipping mystic. ;-)

Post 14

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:55am

Hi Bill,

Whether or not one thinks that abortion should be a matter for the law, it is an evasion of reality to not recognize that its commonality is a sympton of a sickness in our culture.

Yes, I agree with that. While I think abortion is wrong, because it is contrary to human nature, I think those who consider it have already made so many bad choices, the abortion one is made in a kind of desperation and hopelessness. The act itself is usually a symptom of larger problems in an individual's life. While I do believe there are other cases, in most cases one's life should never be so far out of control that a decision about abortion ever comes up.

However, you bring up the one issue that everyone has ignored, whatever the moral status of abortion, is it any business of government? Of course my answer is no.

Regi

Post 15

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 11:27am

Mr. Stoyarov,

Thanks for the comments. I will make some comments about some of them, but first I have a question.

Do you think abortion ought to be a government issue. Should abortion be prohibited by law, and the violation of that law be punishable as a crime?

For the record, I believe abortion is immoral, but none of the government's business. I also believe that particular immorality is symptomatic of more serious problems, and without solving those, abortion will often appear to be the best solution to a hopeless situation.

Some comments:

But there is the right to not have something taken away by force and without consent-- especially when that something is one's own life.

Rights do not extend to something simply because it is alive. The right to life is the right to pursue it--it assumes a person is able to pursue it. A fetus is unable to pursue life. There is nothing to take away from a fetus. The fetus does not have a life of its own; until it is born, its life is only an extension of the mother's life.

A child, until about age two, is also entirely unable to sustain himself.

The unborn are unable to do anything to sustain their life and they initiate no action toward sustaining it. If cut off from the life of the mother, it dies, because it has no life of its own.

This is not true of the born. The moment a child breaths, it can survive until it needs nourishment. The child's own breathing sustains it with life-giving oxygen. It is active in announcing its hunger, the child initiates that action. The newborn suckle; the child initiates that action. They begin learning the moment they are born, looking, moving, touching; the child initiates that action. The moment a child is born it begins live on its own. It is true, it is not entirely independent, but it is not entirely dependent either. If the child, because of some problem, does not suckle, does not breath, does not develop, it will die, because its action is required for it to be sustained. This is not true before birth.

I said: Conception is no guarantee of birth.

... and you said: Actually, I must dissent here. Have you read "An Objectivist Condemnation of Abortion"? I consider conception an effective guarantee of the birth of an individual with a particular genetic code; absent deliberate human intervention or accidents of nature, this birth will inevitably and inexorably occur.

But you contradict yourself. "You admit, it is only, "absent ... accidents of nature, ... birth will inevitably ... occur." There is no guarantee an "accident of nature, " will not occur. They happen all the time. I agree, especially in Western countries they happen less frequently than they did historically and in most parts of the world, but they still happen, and conception is no guarantee there will be a birth. A probability is not a fact. We do not count our chickens or our babies until the eggs hatch or the babies are born.

... once they conceive ... they are obliged to bring that particular being up into a state of independence ...

Obliged by who or what? What is the law of nature or reality that places that obligation on them? Whence comes this obligation to support that which cannot support itself?

There is certain knowledge before the fact; Ms. Kanabe's parents knew that her mother was pregnant with the child whose genetic code is particular and unique to Ms. Kanabe.

Here is a rule of philosophy. No philosophical truth can depend on a discovery of science to be true. If you are using knowledge of the nature of genetics as the basis of the argument for the "responsibility" of parents, that responsibility could not have existed until science discovered genetics. If you were right, moral principles would come and go with every new scientific discovery.

As a matter or moral principle, no one has "a right to exist," and no one has an obligation to keep someone existing who will not or cannot do what is necessary to exist.

Regi

Post 16

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 8:40pm

Hi, Byron.

>>I do not count getting an "A" in college to be a significant achievement . . . then again, I am biased against "college pukes".<<

You and me both. I was enrolled at MIT to study physics in 1980, but I said to hell with that. Enough of school. So I enlisted in the Air Force, and what happened? I ended up spending two years in school studying Russian.

>>But enough of this love fest. It would be too damaging to my social approval and self-esteem to associate with a whim-worshipping mystic. ;-)<<

Indeed. Time to duck and cover with all the sanctions and un-sanctions flying back and forth in this thread. ;)

Regards,
Bill

Post 17

Thursday, June 17, 2004 - 9:22pm

Hi, Regi.

>>However, you bring up the one issue that everyone has ignored, whatever the moral status of abortion, is it any business of government? Of course my answer is no.<<

The question is: Does abortion initiate force against a person or his property? If so, it is a crime that is properly a matter for the government to police.

I suspect the reason you say no is because it appears that you do not believe an unborn child is a human being. Therefore there can be no initiation of force against it. Right? Please correct me if I got you wrong on this point, because it does puzzle me. I don't know how any clear-minded person can refute what is a scientific fact, so I'm intrigued by how you might square this circle. Beyond my curiosity about what you think on this particular point, I don't care to argue about it. Especially because I think we agree that the issue of legality turns on the answer to my question. If so, then it is a matter for fact. Just as I wouldn't bother to argue about whether or not the moon is made of green cheese, I won't bother to argue whether or not it is a human being that exists in a mother's womb.

That said, it is only fair that I now match your "no" with an answer: I'm not sure.

To be perfectly honest, Regi, it wouldn't bother me if abortionists were prosecuted for plying their vile craft (though I understand that they'll continue to be in high demand, legally or not, until the underlying sickness in our culture is cured). After all I do believe they are knowingly killing human beings. However, I think most women who resort to abortion are, as you note, at the end of a long train of misfortune and bad decisions. They are desperate people, because the bonds of decent society have ruptured around them. So I cannot picture the circumstances under which it would be just for society to prosecute them. They have sought an awful quick fix which, from what I have read on the subject, remains an albatross tied around their necks for the rest of their lives. Such women have been abandoned by us (even if their bad decisions played a primary role in this), so who are we to demand any more opprobrium than what they what likely heap upon themselves?

So, Regi, I can't give you a decisive "yes" to match your crisp "no". However, I think we both understand the law is not the solution to this problem. I suspect it will take a generation recoiling from the degradation of abortion-on-demand and a lot of moral suasion to bring about the justice that the law cannot deliver.

Regards,
Bill

(Edited by Citizen Rat on 6/17, 10:12pm)

Post 18

Friday, June 18, 2004 - 12:37pm

Hi Bill,

I suspect the reason you say no is because it appears that you do not believe an unborn child is a human being. ... I don't know how any clear-minded person can refute what is a scientific fact, so I'm intrigued by how you might square this circle.

The definition of human has nothing to do with science. If it did, we would not have been able to correctly define what a human being is until science got around to explaining it. Moral principles do not change with the discoveries of science.

I assume you read Post 15 in which I gave brief answers to G.'s comments. I do not regard a fetus an independent organism, whatever its genetic coding. It is only a potential human being until it begins to sustain itself, a necessary part of any definition of a separate organism.

Science cannot possibly solve the issue because it is a philosophical question, not a scientific one. (For those who regard a zygote a person, the question is, how many persons? For those who regard the fact that the tissue is genetically unique and human, the question is, when a boy is born with the undeveloped fetus of a brother in its abdomen, is it murder to remove that undeveloped fetus. Etc.)

If a human is defined as any member of the rational/volition species, at all stages of development, beginning from the moment one is awake and self-sustaining to any degree (at least breathing and therefore born), there are no ambiguities. There are always borderline cases that must be decided when one is at the border.

This is not an argument, only an explanation of my position.

However, I think we both understand the law is not the solution to this problem.

Yes, exactly!

I suspect it will take a generation recoiling from the degradation of abortion-on-demand and a lot of moral suasion to bring about the justice that the law cannot deliver.

It will not be changed, by suasion or by law, because you cannot change people. All of the things that are going wrong, that we agree are going wrong, will continue in that direction, I suspect, for longer than most people would predict, until a major catastrophe brings change. The change may not be good. The reversal will come when those few who are truly moral and rational understand they can no longer support any government and must free themselves, because they can. It may be too late when they finally wake up. There are no guarantees.

Regi

Post 19

Saturday, June 19, 2004 - 7:55am