Partial Birth Abortion: ARI vs. Ayn Rand

Glenn Woiceshyn, writing on behalf of the Ayn Rand Institute, made the following statements in several articles dealing with the controversial topic of so-called "partial birth abortion":

" 'Partial-birth' abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the woman's health or life...

"Anti-abortionists coined the term 'partial birth' to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer "unborn," and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation can't create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right.

"Banning any type of abortion to "protect the fetus" necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- an utter perversion of individual rights... Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut..." Ban on "Partial-Birth" Abortion Would Be a Blow to Individual Rights (9-25-03)

There are critically important issues involved here. Anti-abortionists claim that this issue reveals the hypocrisy behind the claims of pro-choice advocates that they want to stand on the principle of a woman's right to control her own body. The cavalier sanction of late term abortion, when the potential viability of the fetus outside the womb may be at issue, suggests that whim-worship, not self-determination, is what the supporters of pro-choice are really defending.

Where the health and safety of the woman or the fetus is clearly threatened, late-term abortion may well be justified. But Woiceshyn defends abortion in a way that implies a woman can blithely choose to destroy the fetus until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. He contends that to do otherwise is to open the door to an eventual ban on all abortions.

But the opposite is true: the failure to make crucial distinctions regarding the developmental stage of the embryo or fetus totally undermines the pro-choice position, and lends credence to the pro-lifer's contention that all abortion represents the devaluation of human life.

Woiceshyn argues that the opponents of "partial birth abortion" are trying to "create an essential distinction when none exists." Well, since he is writing under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, he might have investigated what she had to say on that subject:

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights�and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter, A Last Survey--Part I ,Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December 1975

Ayn Rand obviously considered the first three months of a pregnancy to be essentially distinct from the subsequent stages. There is every reason to believe she may well have opposed 'partial birth abortion' on principle, when no health or safety issues were paramount. If the Ayn Rand Institute prides itself on strict philosophical adherence to her ideas and teachings, it might want to stop promoting views directly contradictory to her own writing on the subject.

Post 1

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:30am

If the fetus is viable, it gets born, and life begins, as is the norm, at birth - but to claim artificial viability, of life beginning under artificial inducements, is NOT viability in the proper manner, but an intrusion into the wellbeing of the woman.... as such, it is interesting how distorted are made Rand's words in claiming life before birth - she saying "one may argue" is NOT to say "it is", but to only state a possibility, nothing more...

Post 2

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:10am

Robert, if life begins at birth, what does it mean to advise a woman that the fetus has died and that she must have an abortion or undergo induced labor to expel it?

You are equivocating to support your point. It's much more honest simply to admit that the fetus is a living individual, but one who you do not think yet has the rights of an independent person. To say that life begins at birth is nothing less than miraculous, spontaneous generation. At no point in the reproductive process, from adult to sperm and egg, to zygote to fetus to baby is there any interruption in the metabolic activity of the cells involved. Life continues uninterrupted. Objectivists don't need to equivocate to make their points. I understand your intention, but your method is disingenuous.

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/23, 5:08pm)

Post 3

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 11:21am

Writing on behalf of the Ayn Rand Institute, Glenn Woiceshyn defends partial-birth abortion, on the grounds that during that procedure, the fetus is still part of the woman's body and is not a separate person with individual rights until it is actually born and the umbilical cord cut.

Dennis Hardin objects that this was not Ayn Rand's view and cites the following statement by her in support of his position: "Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights�and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable." (Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter, "A Last Survey--Part I ," Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December 1975)

Hardin interprets her remarks as follows:

Ayn Rand obviously considered the first three months of a pregnancy to be essentially distinct from the subsequent stages. There is every reason to believe she may well have opposed 'partial birth abortion' on principle, when no health or safety issues were paramount. If the Ayn Rand Institute prides itself on strict philosophical adherence to her ideas and teachings, it might want to stop promoting views directly contradictory to her own writing on the subject.

I don't think Woiceshyn's views on abortion are "directly contradictory" to Rand's. Rand isn't saying here that abortion beyond the first trimester is a violation of rights. She is simply saying that while it may be reasonable to argue about the later stages of pregnancy, there is no justification whatsoever for prohibiting abortion in the first trimester. My interpretation is buttressed by the statement in her article, "Of Living Death," in which she writes, "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 Voice of Reason, p. 58, hb)

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/23, 11:28am)

Post 4

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 1:13pm

Robert, Ted, William,

The contradiction I refer to involves whether or not relevant distinctions can be drawn based on the stage of pregnancy. Woiceshyn suggests that we cannot make such developmental distinctions during pregnancy, and makes his case for partial birth abortion on that basis. He contends that a woman's right to control her own body remains the only relevant principle until the baby's actual birth. It is clear that Rand believed there was a significant distinction, and that it occurred around three months after conception.

Obviously I am not arguing that Rand explicitly opposed �partial birth abortion,� since I am not aware that she ever expressed a clear position on late-term abortion. But the fact that she recognized the distinction implies she might well have opposed such abortions when no health or safety issues were involved. Otherwise, why would she have made the developmental stage an issue at all?

It is significant that all of the Rand quotes cited use the term embryo rather than fetus. The American Heritage Dictionary defines an embryo this way: �In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.� Fetus is defined as follows: �In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.� The �On-line Medical Dictionary� from Academic Medical publishing confirms that distinction.

By implying that the woman�s choice should be the only issue in late term abortions, ARI is adopting a viewpoint contrary to that of Ayn Rand. At the very least, she considered the question of late-term abortion a legitimate issue for political and ethical debate.

My own view is that newborn rights begin at the stage of fetal viability�that is, when the fetus could survive on its own. I realize this is a very difficult thing to determine scientifically. But the relevance to the partial birth abortion debate is obvious. The point is that the advocates of pro-choice need to demonstrate that they appreciate the importance of the ethical issues involved and not dismiss the matter as insignificant and irrelevant.

Post 5

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 2:09pm

You stole my thunder there, Bill. I was going to post virtually the same response. I'm glad you beat me to it though.

Dennis: "The contradiction I refer to involves whether or not relevant distinctions can be drawn based on the stage of pregnancy. Woiceshyn suggests that we cannot make such developmental distinctions during pregnancy, and makes his case for partial birth abortion on that basis. He contends that a woman's right to control her own body remains the only relevant principle until the baby's actual birth. It is clear that Rand believed there was a significant distinction, and that it occurred around three months after conception."

Well, no, that's not clear.

In the quote Bill cited, AR doesn't mention any distinction among various stages of pregnancy at all. She specifically identifies birth as the bright line.

In the one you cited, AR says only that, as Bill points out, it's reasonable to argue about the morality of abortion in late-term pregnancy. The implication, of course, is that it's unreasonable to argue about the morality of abortion in early-term pregnancy.

In other words, AR is saying the view that abortion is immoral per se in early pregnancy can't be based in reality, while the view that abortion is immoral per se in late-term pregnancy can be based in reality (though it may still be false). And judging by the other quote that Bill cited, it appears she did think the latter view was false.

Post 6

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:04pm

What Jon said.

Dennis, I do not understand your continued adherence to a view which, if I may coin a phrase, "directly contradicts" Rand's stated position on the subject. You can't get much more explicit than this: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." (AR. The Voice of Reason, p. 58, hb)

- Bill

Post 7

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:20pm

Jon,

Nice try, but I�m sorry, you can�t have it both ways.

(1) ��AR doesn't mention any distinction among various stages of pregnancy at all.�

(2) ��AR is saying the view that abortion is immoral per se in early pregnancy can't be based in reality, while the view that abortion is immoral per se in late-term pregnancy can be based in reality (though it may still be false). ..�

Excuse me, but your second statement acknowledges that Rand believed there were important distinctions in the stages of pregnancy that might well make a difference with respect to the morality of abortion. And that is all I am arguing here.

Good grief. Either she thought that the first three months represented a significant distinction, or she didn't. If she didn't, she would not have mentioned it.

Nothing is more bewildering to me than the spectacle of Objectivists scrambling for ways to defend their set point of view in defiance of facts staring them in the face.

Post 8

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 3:34pm

Bill,

So the fact that Rand said that �rights begin at birth� allows us to ignore everything else she said on the same topic?

Is that your contention? You choose the statement you like and ignore everything else, regardless of any inconsistency?

For the record, I am not contending that my views on this subject are the same as Rand�s. I hold a number of views which undoubtedly �contradict Rand.� I am contending that ARI is promoting a view which contradicts Rand.

Post 9

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 4:55pm

Dennis wrote,

So the fact that Rand said that �rights begin at birth� allows us to ignore everything else she said on the same topic?

Is that your contention? You choose the statement you like and ignore everything else, regardless of any inconsistency?

I've already explained why I don't think there's an inconsistency. She says that "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy . . ." She doesn't say that the argument is valid or that she would agree with it. And the fact that she wouldn't is confirmed by her statement in The Voice of Reason that "A child cannot acquire rights until it is born."

For the record, I am not contending that my views on this subject are the same as Rand�s. I hold a number of views which undoubtedly �contradict Rand.� I am contending that ARI is promoting a view which contradicts Rand.

When I said that I do not understand your continued adherence to a view which "directly contradicts" Rand's stated position on the subject, I was referring to your claim that she does not hold the view that Woiceshyn is endorsing, when it's quite clear that she does. I am simply amazed at your refusal to recognize this, and by the way, I am not an ARI spokesperson or defender. I disagree with them on a number of issues, but on this one, there is no question that they reflect her views on the subject.

- Bill

Post 10

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 5:20pm

Having been through this before, I certainly don't intend to reprise my arguments. I will simply admit that Rand did obviously tend toward the most permissive policies on abortion whenever she qualified the subject. She seemed to place the burden on those who would restrict late-term abortions to prove their points, but she also obviously granted that their arguments could not be dismissed out of hand.

As for the actual recent decision on partial birth abortion, the law forbids inserting a device into the brain of a "late-term-fetus" for the purpose of killing that fetus, once said fetus has either emerged to the navel during breach birth, or to the crown of the head during normal presentation.

In other words, one cannot commit infanticide during birth.

Ted

Post 11

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 5:40pm

Ted said:

...Rand did obviously tend toward the most permissive policies on abortion whenever she qualified the subject. She seemed to place the burden on those who would restrict late-term abortions to prove their points, but she also obviously granted that their arguments could not be dismissed out of hand.

That sums it up pretty well. Woiceshyn's defense (and therefore ARI's defense) of partial birth abortion is clearly inconsistent with the contention that late-term abortions could ever be legitimately restricted.

Bill said:

I've already explained why I don't think there's an inconsistency. She says that "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy . . ." She doesn't say that the argument is valid or that she would agree with it. And the fact that she wouldn't is confirmed by her statement in The Voice of Reason that "A child cannot acquire rights until it is born."

Do you seriously believe Rand would suggest that "one may argue" legitimately a point where she did not consider that argument had at least some validity? Sure. Uh-huh. What utter nonsense!

I would not necessarily take issue with Rand�s statement that �Rights begin at birth.� That is a generalization which holds true under most circumstances. I would probably make that statement in a context where the viability of the embryo/ fetus was out of the question.

Why not put it that way as long as there is no conflict between the fetus� rights and the mother�s rights? It is a simple, straightforward way of describing what happens in almost every situation we see in the real world. It is in those rare circumstances when a conflict does arise that the issue has to be examined more closely�and it is then that the question of the fetus� rights becomes relevant, and the generalization has to be modified for that specific, technical context.

Would anyone seriously suggest that �rights begin at birth� means that the mother has every right to arbitrarily kill the fetus the day before she delivers? Or the week before? Give me a break. If you concede that obvious point, then you are conceding that there are indeed distinct stages in pregnancy�and you have to be a total pro-choice dogmatist to even try to evade that simple, brazen reality. And it is the dogmatists who are fueling the growing antipathy for those who use such �principles� to devalue human life�thereby tarnishing the entire pro-choice position.

Post 12

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 5:41pm

Dennis,

With all due respect, you're failing to grasp the crucial distinction in the quote you're relying on from AR.

As Bill already said, AR was talking about whether it's reasonable to argue about the morality of late-term abortion. She didn't say the position that it's immoral at that point was valid.

Let me try to make this point with another example.

Suppose someone adheres to the "complexity argument" for god (i.e., there must be a god because the complexity of nature couldn't have arisen arbitrarily). You and I both know that argument is wrong. But it's still based on the observation of objective reality (though the logic leading to the conclusion is incorrect). Thus, it wouldn't be unreasonable to argue the issue with this person.

Now suppose someone roots his belief in god on the notion that it feels good to him. This argument is also false. Moreover, it's absurd; it doesn't rely on objective reality. With such a person, it would be unreasonable to even discuss the issue.

Pertaining to the immorality of abortion after three months, AR views the issue as being in the same class as the first argument for god. Before three months, she views it as being in the same class as the second argument for god.

Regardless, both views are wrong.

That said, I believe partial birth abortion is problematic because it does involve partial birth. Thus, I think it's logical to believe that AR might have opposed it. I don't think it's a clear case (that doesn't mean there's no right answer, only that I think Objectivists can honestly disagree about it).
(Edited by Jon Trager on 5/24, 8:52am)

Post 13

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 6:17pm

So the argument is about who is the more dogmatic in their beliefs?

Or is it about whether being more dogmatic is a virtue?

It's too bad that the recent discussion of human rights got so sidetracked.

Rights are moral/ethical prohibitions against interference with ones actions, BTW.

I have a quibble concerning Rand's position, as best I recall it, that rights do not apply in lifeboat situations or on desert islands, as they are strictly negative and depend upon a normal social/ethical context. Taking that position is consistent with the idea that real rights never come into conflict, but it does not seem consistent with the definition of rights per se.

If there are ten of us in a storm in a lifeboat capable of saving five, then each of us ten has a moral right, based on our basic moral standard of life, to pursue our own individual survival, and to prohibit others from interfering with our throwing them off the boat. By that interpretation, our rights are in conflict, but only because of the nature of the non-normal situation. And so what?

A crow is capable of making moral choices and, while perhaps not capable of fully conceptualizing what a "right" or a moral standard is, it also could in theory claim a right to eat the farmers corn. For the crow, lacking a more powerful intelligence, this IS a lifeboat situation. The crow's rights and the farmers are definitely in conflict, all the time. And that's true of many animals of lower intelligence than humans.

By this argument, then, a near term foetus might be said to have rights similar to those of a crow - although the crow is nearer to human in intelligence. It definitely cannot survive on its own. Thus, it is in a kind of lifeboat situation, with its survival totally dependent upon whether others value it enough to provide the means to live. If the others do not, then the rights are in conflict just like the crow and the farmer. Tough luck, foetus.

It is our intelligence and the potentialities of specialization, cooperation and trade that make it possible for us to have rights that do NOT conflict, to the point that when our rights DO apparently conflict, we look for the breakdown in our ethical analysis or our social structures and mores. Only in real breakdowns of either the social or physical environment do we assume that rights may be in conflict, and then only temporarily and usually still with certain basic constraints.

Post 14

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 7:00pm

Dennis wrote,

Would anyone seriously suggest that �rights begin at birth� means that the mother has every right to arbitrarily kill the fetus the day before she delivers?
Yes!
Or the week before?
Yes!
Give me a break.

Give you a break! -- you, a man who apparently can't read and understand plain English?? Apparently, for you, the statement "Rights begin at birth" doesn't mean rights begin at birth; it means that rights begin sometime before birth.

If you concede that obvious point...,
Obvious point???
then you are conceding that there are indeed distinct stages in pregnancy�and you have to be a total pro-choice dogmatist to even try to evade that simple, brazen reality.

Dennis, you are truly a lost cause.

Have a nice day!

- Bill

Post 15

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 7:02pm

This conversation, as with all the others concerning abortion on this site, ends up being not about abortion, and instead about dreaded responsibility and obligation. Because of this I want to offer a possibility: since we now have vastly superior medical technology than did Miss Rand�s generation, could it be argued that a woman after six or seven months of pregnancy is aware of the pregnancy and has accepted it?

Post 16

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 7:18pm

Steve, you almost
sound like
me!

(Be warned.)

Ted

Post 17

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 8:30pm

Life begins at conception.
But a mother can kill her baby with impunity.
This operates throughout life.
Your mother -- but only your mother -- has the right to kill you.

If -- and to the extent that -- you can defend yourself, then you live; but a baby or an infant or a child or a fetus or a blastocyst cannot do that. So, a consequence of observable physical fact determines the outcome.

Can a mother kill a teenager? or an adult?

Yes. That is the operation of moral law.

Post 18

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:00pm

?!?

Wednesday, May 23, 2007 - 9:55pm