Bill,
You ask:
Do you agree that the statement "rights begin at birth" means that rights begin at birth? If you do, then on what grounds do you say that a mother has no right to kill her fetus before its rights have begun? If it does not yet have any rights, then how could killing it violate its rights? And if killing it doesn't violate its rights, then why wouldn't she have a right to kill it? If you could answer these questions, it would help me to better understand your position.
On another thread, you make the following comments:
So, in setting the standard for when rights are acquired, one needs to allow ample room for error. Since children develop at different rates and since any standard that is set after birth is not easy to identify by casual observation, the safest standard for the acquisition of rights is the bright line of birth. There is no mistaking a separate human being.
Now, it may be argued that a fetus that is capable of surviving outside the womb is no different from a newborn; the former is simply part of the mother's body, whereas the latter is not. Here we have a similar problem to that of setting the standard some time after birth -- a lack of precision and of ease of identification. When exactly a fetus becomes viable may not be entirely clear and can become a matter of interpretation. Should a woman who aborts a fetus in the third trimester be charged with murder based on someone else's arguable interpretation of the fetus' viability? We can avoid this problem as well by setting the standard at birth, after which it is obvious that the offspring is a separate individual.
Teresa says:
There is simply NO argument to support the idea that a fetus at 8.75 months gestation isn't viable! Its a fantasy, a stretch, and an assault on facts to suggest viability isn't present at that stage.
And you reply:
I agree, and would not have argued otherwise. My point was simply that it is easier to err in determining viability in utero than it is to identify a newborn. But it would seem that there is a more precise standard for identifying viability in utero than I had originally thought. So, you make a good point here.
And, as far as I am concerned, that is the whole point. The right to abortion derives from a woman's right to control her own body, which is absolute. As long as the fetus is dependent on her, it has no rights. Once it can survive without her as a host--and this can be determined objectively--she no longer has the right to destroy it. The difficulty is with the medical definition of where viability begins. But as Teresa stated--and you seemed to agree--there simply is no real debate about this within the last week or two prior to birth. No woman should have the right to arbitrarily kill a child at that point.
I say arbitrarily, because I still consider the mother's life and rights to take precedence, even then. If there is any question about a potential threat to her health or safety at any stage prior to natural delivery, she has no obligation to wait for nature to take its course. She can simply have the fetus removed with absolutely no regard for its capacity for independent survival. If there is a reasonable chance of viability, however, every precaution should be taken to maximize that potential.
I consider the statement "rights begin at birth" to be on the same status as any generalization or abstraction. One cannot simply take it at face value and deduce appropriate conduct. It holds true in 99% of the real life situations where it is relevant--but that does not mean that we can treat it rationalistically. As Objectivists, we have to maintain a dual focus on abstractions and perceptual concretes, retain the hierarchical context for our ideas, and integrate our conclusions with other knowledge.
As an Objectivist, I would be acutely embarrassed if another Objectivist went on national television and announced to the world that, because ‘rights begin at birth,’ mothers can feel free to kill their babies at 8 months and 3 weeks. It would set the movement back even further than Peikoff’s last appearance on O’Reilly. (If that's possible.)
Objectivists agree that the government should only use force in retaliation, and, therefore, it should not control or regulate the sale of weapons. There’s another abstraction. Does that mean government should look the other way if someone parks a tank on their front lawn and keeps it pointed at your living room? Or if your neighbor enjoys experimenting with hydrogen bombs in his basement?
Objectivists cannot simply justify actions on the basis of principles while ignoring the specific real world context. We must make it a policy to systematlically translate our abstractions into perceptual reality in every given concrete instance. Otherwise, we have no business calling ourselves Objectivists.
(Edited by Dennis Hardin on 5/29, 4:02am)
|
