Rights

The Free Radical editorial policy states that I have the right to sustain my life and pursue my happiness by virtue of my nature as a thinking choosing entity.

My question is just how much thinking and choosing ability must an entity demonstate before it is entitled to rights such as the right to life?

A new born human baby is incapable of thinking or choosing, does it have the right to life? Many animals demonstate an ability to think and choose yet it is generally agreed by Objectivists that animals do not have a right to life, why?

Post 1

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 2:24pm

That's a rather complex question. I don't think it can be answered in a simple post.

My own opinion on the subject is pretty much detailed in this opening post of a debate I had with someone opposed to the Objectivist rights principles :
http://www.objectivethought.com/debates/feluxb2.html

Post 2

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 2:37pm

Good question, Mark

You don't have to demonstrate any "thinking or choosing ability" in order for your rights to be respected. There is no test to pass after which a government official awards you with a certificate. Your rights are yours by virtue of being an individual person.

We establish the need for and the nature of our rights by studying the nature of reality (including human nature and what it means to be an individual person). See "Man's Rights" from The Virtue of Selfishness.

Having established that a person is most likely to survive and flourish when "not subject to coercion by the arbitrary will of another or others" (Hayek), we can recognise that every person's right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness be respected -- provided that he/she respect the equal rights of others -- even before a person has developed his/her full, human capacities and even after many of those capacities have been lost.

Thus, the law recognises each individual person's rights. That includes newborn babies and senile geriatrics. And it excludes animals and embryos.

The principle here is as follows:

Laws of general application (rights) are established by reference to a member of a class in a generic context (one person in a social context). These laws are then applied to all members of the class (each person) regardless of their stage of development -- in much the same way that a seed, a sapling and a mature oak are subject to the same natural laws regardless of age.

Age is not a significant enough factor to place a person beyond the scope of individual rights. If you are a defenceless baby then there is all the more reason that your rights should be respected. Likewise if you are old, senile and defenceless then there is also good reason that your rights should be respected.

Post 3

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 2:59pm

Francois I am still digesting your argument so I will respond later.

I agree with your argument Barry. The reason I asked the question was because it seemed to me that the criteria for rights had got it back to front. As stated in the Free Radical it seemed to me that we have rights because some entity has examined us and concluded that our thinking and reasonaing ability was of a sufficient standard to be granted rights. Whereas my conclusion is that we have rights because we can claim them. We restrict rights to those who are capable of reasoning because that is a rough and ready way of distinguishing between humans and non-humans because we have decided not to grant rights to non-humans and we need a way of distinguishing between humans and non-humans.

Just a query, you mentioned that a seed sapling and a mature oak tree are subject to the same natural laws regardless of age, surely that would also apply to an embryo fetus and new born baby?

Post 4

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 5:19pm

Hi Mark,

Excellent question, one I've been pondering for quite some time and have thus far have no answer for.

Biologically, metaphysically we must recognize all stages of human development as being part of the human life cycle. We begin, biologically, when the egg and sperm unite and we end when we die. Our life cycle, in all its stages, is what we are according to natural laws. This can be scientifically proven and has been. It is interesting to note that our modern technology, being able to do ultrasounds early in pregnancy has had a significant impact on lowering the number of woman seeking abortion.

But back to what I was saying ...

I have never understood why the natural laws of human development are dismissed when it comes to the recognition of rights in humans.

It has been explained to me that because the fetus resides inside the female, it is not considered individual enough to have rights to protect it, according to Objectivists. The argument seems to hinge on the fact that the fetus is supported inside the mother's body during development .. as if we had a choice in how nature commanded man to reproduce?

It has been said by various I've spoken to that while we biologically recognize that the fetus is a human being, we have chosen for reasons of expediency (politically) to draw the line of 'humaness' elsewhere, to err on the side of caution most Objectivists draw some line between 3 and 6 months gestation as appropriate for termination so that the woman does not experience a violation of her rights. By that I mean, most Objectivists believe that anytime up to either 3 months gestation or up to 6 months depending on some .. criteria? is okay.

Hopefully this conversation will still be going when I get back on line next week, I'm very interested in where it might lead as I have spent a great deal of time thinking about this particular issue and the Objectivist view isn't one I can accept at this point.

Joy

Post 5

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 5:44pm

Joy, I think the criterion most commonly used for determining when (in the course of a woman's pregnancy) a woman has the right to seek abortion is the point at which an unborn child can live outside the mother's body without the need for life support machinery. Nobody has the right to force a woman to carry a child to term, or even to raise that child after it's been born. However, once a child has been born, the mother can allow another to raise the child without too much risk of harm to the child.

Of course, I make no mention of one of the more irrational ideas floating around society, the idea that one's biological (or 'natural') parents are more important than the people who actually raised the child. I see no reason why a child should think of the people who raised him as anything other than his parents, and the only reason I can think of for seeking one's biological parents is to get an understanding of what medical conditions the child might end up developing over the course of his life. If you were adopted and cancer ran in your family, you'd probably want to know about it. (Me, I wouldn't really care. If cancer doesn't kill me, something else will.)

As for the rights of animals, here's my opinion: show me a cat that can pass a Turing test and I'll accord it human rights. Same goes for dogs, dolphins, spammers, and Republicans.

Post 6

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 6:38pm

Matthew,

No one forcing a woman to get pregnant in the first place -- it is there any argument about the pros or cons of abortion should begin. Pregnancy is not some random act of nature, no mystical god implanting helpless women with his seed. As far as I recall, it takes a volitional act on the part of the woman and of the man to bring pregnancy about.

What are the man's rights and responsibilities?

The acceptance of the woman's responsibility for starting the biological process of human development is overlooked in many debates on this subject. To support abortion (at any stage) is allowing a woman to 'have her cake and eat it too' and absolves her of any moral or legal guilt in the termination of a life she volitionally began. For a philosophy that bases its fundamental principles on the facts of reality and repeatedly invokes the idea of suffering the consequences of one's actions, this seems something of a contradiction.

If you choose to have sex, one of the consequences of that choice is the possibility of becoming pregnant. However, once that developmental process is started, the developing embryo is a human(genetically) and therefore, if we are to recognize that humans have specific rights, those rights have to be established at this point as well. To set some arbitrary point based on the the ability to survive ex utero against the natural laws of human development is nothing short of ridiculous. We do not require any other creature in nature to submit to such a condition, why do we so require this of human beings?

Tim

Post 7

Wednesday, January 22, 2003 - 11:28pm

Hi Mark

You wrote: Just a query, you mentioned that a seed sapling and a mature oak tree are subject to the same natural laws regardless of age, surely that would also apply to an embryo fetus and new born baby?

I reply: Yes, in a general context, it would. But the analogy breaks down because people -- with a few rare exceptions -- are not oaks. :-)

I introduced that analogy within the context of discussing the individual rights of persons. But, as you point out, the analogy can easily be extended beyond that context so, in hindsight, I concede that it's a weak analogy.

Post 8

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 7:38am

Tim, I'm of the opinion that abortion is the woman's decision because it's the woman who has to spend nine months pregnant. If I don't want to impregnate a woman, all I have to do is keep my penis away from her vagina.

Now, there are times when the woman is forced into pregnancy. For example, what if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape. What if she, along with her lover, did everything they could to avoid pregnancy -- but she got pregnant anyway. Contraception fails from time to time.

Putting aside the rights and responsibilities of the man, I think that the question is this: is it right to force a woman to carry a child to term? I think that it is wrong.

Post 9

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 8:19am

Hello Barry,

You first wrote:
Laws of general application (rights) are established by reference to a member of a class in a generic context (one person in a social context). These laws are then applied to all members of the class (each person) regardless of their stage of development -- in much the same way that a seed, a sapling and a mature oak are subject to the same natural laws regardless of age.

Which is a true statement. The application of the laws has to be uniform over all developmental stages. An embryo and a fetus are different developmental states of humans. An embryo has the potential to become a great composer, the next Einstein, a mass murderer. It is, and remains a human although at a different developmental stage - genetically and biologically it is a human and no manner of mincing words will change that. Until it becomes fact, any individual at any stage of development has the potential to become a great composer, the next Einstein, a mass murderer or nothing at all. Degree of potential has no bearing on whether or not a living being is considered human enough to have its rights protected. Degree of potential is not something that can be objectively quantified.

However, you then went on to retract what you wrote with this statement:
I introduced that analogy within the context of discussing the individual rights of persons. But, as you point out, the analogy can easily be extended beyond that context so, in hindsight, I concede that it's a weak analogy.

It is not a weak analogy, it exactly describes what is true of all living things -- there is a developmental cycle for each living thing. As a scientist, specifically a biologist, it is the foundation of my work to understand the life cycle of living things. I study mice in all stages of development, embryonic, fetal and adult. The cells I use for my work are always mouse cells no matter when they were taken from the mouse. A mouse is a mouse is a mouse -- biologically speaking at any stage of development just as a human is a human is a human, at whatever stage of biological development . Just as an oak is an oak is an oak, again at different stages of development . To deny scientific fact in order to advance a particular idea is an evasion of the facts of reality, of scientifically provable facts.

With that recognized, the issue is do you wish to define a politically expedient stage that allows for the limitation of rights based on stages of human development?

The Objectivist argument is that it does wish to limit the rights of biological humans based on various stages of human development. And the motivating factor for the 'need' of this limit to rights is the happiness of another human who happens to be in a different stage of human development. It has been argued that one stage of human development is more worthy of having its rights protected than another, i.e., a mother's rights to happiness are more important than the life she began of her own volition. On what basis? Solely on the basis of the fact that a later stage of development has experienced more, is able to reason, is conscious? Has potential for something greater in life that might be at risk if a fetus is brought to term?

The choice to support abortion is political in nature. Philosophy, specifically Objectivism, is advocating the idea of removing the freedom from one human for the expedience and happiness of another based on arbitrary lines of human development upon which Objectivists can not even agree.

The woman's right to choose comes at the point where she knowingly and intentionally places herself in a position to get pregnant. That is where her choice is made (along with the man she is with), and there is where her freedom of action lies.

A woman's choice after conception and during embryonic development involves another living being. At that point, aborting a fetus is murder -- an intentional ending of life for the sake of convenience. Call it something else, for political expedience , but recognize what it means and don't evade the nature of that choice by masking it in terms of an embryo not being human.

As a scientist I find it difficult to take Objectivism seriously, or believe it to be credible when it seeks to evade the facts of reality, seeks to deny or evade the laws of nature and seems to dismiss scientific fact in favor of some mystical and arbitrary lines created for political expedience and presumable for the expedience of women who believe they can have their cake and eat it too.

Tim

Post 10

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 9:19am

Hello Matthew:

You wrote:
Tim, I'm of the opinion that abortion is the woman's decision because it's the woman who has to spend nine months pregnant. If I don't want to impregnate a woman, all I have to do is keep my penis away from her vagina.

Exactly. You take responsibility for your choice, yet a woman has no such responsibility? The fact that it takes a human nine months of gestation to produce a viable child has no bearing on the state of individual rights and who and when they are assigned. A nine month gestation period is simply a fact of life -- a fact that should be considered when embarking in reproductive behaviors, but it is not an excuse to abdicate the choice of who has rights and when solely to the woman.

What would your rights be if you decided that you did want to get her pregnant and she decides, after she is pregnant, that she would rather abort?

If the woman does not want to become pregnant, then she must make the choice to not engage in behavior that will result in pregnancy.

If the woman chooses to have sex, then she knows she has a chance to get pregnant. Even with all birth control methods in use (i.e. she's on the pill, her partner uses a condom, etc.), there is a small, finite chance she may become pregnant. At this point is where she should ask if she is ready for the potential consequences, the nine month gestation period, the change to her lifestyle. Not after the fact.

Once conception occurs, the developmental pathway is set into motion. The developing embryo, biologically speaking, is now human and needs to be protected.

As I said in my comments to Barry, if you want to define a politically expedient stage with the limitation of rights is acceptable, do it with full understanding of what the issues are and what the biology of the system is.

You then wrote:
Now, there are times when the woman is forced into pregnancy. For example, what if a woman becomes pregnant as a result of rape.

The results of a pregnancy because of rape is a special case and is not the focus at this point of the discussion. It is, like many other arguments, an exception held up to justify the rule.

You further stated:
What if she, along with her lover, did everything they could to avoid pregnancy -- but she got pregnant anyway. Contraception fails from time to time.

Yes it fails sometimes, like all technology. Minimize the risk and everything, and the woman still becomes pregnant. Does that justify the violation of one individual's rights for the expedience and happiness of another? The choice was made when she chose to engage in sexual behavior that had a consequence of causing pregnancy. If she is not ready for a pregnancy, then she should not put herself in a position where she could get pregnant, even if the possibility was a remote one.

You concluded with the following:
I think that the question is this: is it right to force a woman to carry a child to term? I think it is wrong.

Force is not involved here.

The right to make a choice was made before the woman got pregnant.

I am expecting a Rational philosophical system to recognize the biological reality and not make a politically expedient and capricous decision and argument to sacrifice the rights of one individual for the happiness of another.

Tim

Post 11

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 11:08am

Tim you basically said what I wanted to say on abortion. But I will go a little further, if a couple engaged in consensual sex and the woman becomes pregnant, and the man wants to become a father but the woman does not want the pregnancy, then in my oppinion the woman may not have an abortion. To do so would be to deny the man the opportunity to become a father and pass on his genes. All she is obliged to do is give birth to a healthy baby at which point she hands the baby to the father who then has full responsibility to raise the child. However if force or duress was involved in the woman becomming pregnant all rights are with the woman.

Now to get back to the original topic: human rights.
It is something I have been thinking about for some time.

The question I have been asking myself is why do we have rights and others e.g. animals do not. There is I believe one universal absolute, that is survival. To put it another way all species have the right to use whatever means at their disposal to survive and reproduce. We humans have the intellectual capacity to develop rules to govern our behaviour to enable us to better survive and reproduce. These rules we call rights. There are only a few, the right to life, the right to property. The right to pursue happiness does not strictly speaking enhance our ability to survive and reproduce, it just makes the process more pleasant. Bogus rights such as the right to free health care are bogus because while they may enhance the life of a few it is at the expense of others. All other rules that govern our life follow from these rights.

Animals do not have rights, not because they do not have rights, they do they have the same right that we have: to use whatever means at their disposal to survive and reproduce. We do not grant them rights because we choose not to grant them rights. We are the top dogs on this planet and if we want to kill animals who is going to stop us? Actually the only thing that will stop us is our reasoning ability, we can decide not to kill them.

Suppose earth were invaded by aliens from a distant part of the galaxy. They have overwhelmingly superior technology and are utterly unable to communicate with us and we with them. They regard us as vermin fit only for enslavement or extermination and proceed to do so. We try to defend ourselves with every means at our disposal and the more we defend ouselves the more detirmined the aliens are to exterminate us.

Our relationship to the aliens and their relationship to us is exactly the same as animals relationship to us and our relationship to them.

We don't recognise that animals have rights, we can't communicate with them and we kill them at will and the harder animals try to defend themselves the more detirmined we are to kill them.

Whether we grant or deny animals rights realy boils down to is it necessary for our survival as a species that we grant them rights or not.

However the rights that we grant animals could better be described as rules that we impose on ourselves to govern the way we treat animals. We choose how we act and the only guiding principle is how does this affect our survival as a species.

Post 12

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 1:04pm

Tim, you asked: What would your rights be if you decided that you did want to get her pregnant and she decides, after she is pregnant, that she would rather abort?"

As far as I know, I have no rights whatsoever in the matter, not if the woman owns her life and her body absolutely. I have no right to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be impregnated. This leaves me two choices: I can keep my penis out of the woman's vagina, or -- if I must have intercourse -- let the woman pursue an abortion if she wants to. It's her body.

Yes, the fetus is still human. However, up until around 7 to 9 months of development it is wholly dependent on another's body for survival. Would I have a right to live if I had to depend on your body for support and you were unwilling?

Mark, you state that a if a man wants a baby and impregnates a woman, then the woman is obliged to bear the child even if she doesn't want to either be pregnant or bear a child. Why? You claim that to abort would be to deny the man the opportunity to "become a father and pass on his genes."

I disagree with you on this point, Mark, because I do not think that the end of passing on one's genes justifies the means of insisting that a woman go through an unwanted pregnancy. I'm essentially using the woman's body to pass on my genes, and to my knowledge that is wrong.

Post 13

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 3:11pm

Mark wrote:

"Now to get back to the original topic: human rights."

My discussion has only covered human rights.

However, you raise the issue of animal rights which is something altogether different.

My only answer to the question of why humans have rights and animals don't is that because we discovered our nature and invented the concept
of Individual freedom based on a system of reasoning.

If animals want rights, they will have discover and construct their own system.

I personally believe in being kind to animals, but I also use animals in my work for the express purpose of finding a cure for leukemia.

I chose not to go into the aliens simply because any race that develops reason and respect for individual rights will ultimately work out a solution. Aliens bent on our destruction are little different from the terrorists that are bent on our destruction and we have the right and obligation to defend ourselves and exterminate them.

Cheers,
Tim

Post 14

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 3:33pm

Hi Tim

Great post! You make a strong case for your position, which is thought-provoking. This is a challenging issue that I doubt we will ever resolve to everyone�s satisfaction.

But, for what it�s worth, my point of view follows.

I agree with you that no boundary line can be found in our biological development to pin-point a moment at which we become human. We are human from conception. And I would even go so far as to say that we cannot find in our biology a �magic moment� at which a human non-person becomes a person. Whatever line we find ourselves choosing necessarily entails choosing against the second, the minute, the hour, the day or the week preceding the moment of our choice, inevitably leading back to conception. But choose we must.

Why?

Because otherwise we find ourselves having to confront an absurdity: that there is no significant difference between a human conceptus and an adult.

A conceptus is not the equal of an adult person, nor a teenager, pre-teen, toddler, infant or newborn. They are similar in only one respect: genetic identity. But genetic identity is totally irrelevant to the concept of rights.

The concept of rights is not biological but socio-political. To be sure, some natural rights theories are constructed on a biological basis, but the concept applies to social interaction among individual persons. That is its context. To apply the concept of rights outside this context leads to the absurdity of equating a conceptus with a mature adult.

To speak of the �rights of the fetus� is to violate what linguistic analysts call the �selectional restrictions� of the concept. Other examples are: thoughts of the fetus; plans of the fetus; choices of the fetus; emotions of the fetus; last will and testament of the fetus; property of the fetus; dependents of the fetus; etc. Each concept carries with it the features of the context out of which it arises. For example �ball� has colour; has shape; has roundness; etc; And �square� has four equal sides and has four equal angles; has no colour; has no roundness; etc. That is why a �square ball� is a contradiction. For similar reasons, �rights of the fetus� is a contradictory phrase. The context of rights and the context of fetus are too different to allow the one to be applied to the other.

For this reason I cannot regard the brutal slaughter of a person and the abortion of a two week old fetus as morally equal events. The first is an instance of murder. The second is not.

Now I accept that many of the features I mentioned above do not apply to a newborn baby either so I anticipate that you might ask, �Why then does a newborn have rights but not an unviable fetus?� And my answer is, unfortunately, bound to be unsatisfying: since we are up against the limitations of our psychology, epistemology and political theory, we have to choose a point at which to regard the fetus as a person -- not based on the hard facts of biological reality but on the soft facts of socio-political reality.

In The Blank Slate Steven Pinker concludes a discussion of abortion as follows:

There is no solution to these dilemmas, because they arise out of a fundamental incommensurability: between our intuitive psychology, with its all-or-none concept of a person or soul, and the brute facts of biology, which tell us that the human brain evolved gradually, develops gradually, and can die gradually. And that means that moral conundrums such as abortion, euthansia and animal rights will never be resolved in a decisive and intuitively satisfying way. This does not mean that no policy is defensible and that the whole matter should be left to personal taste, political power or religious dogma. As the bioethicist Ronald Green has pointed out, it just means we have to reconceptualize the problem: from finding a boundary in nature to choosing a boundary that best trades off the conflicting goods and evils for each policy dilemma. We should make decisions in each case that can be practically implemented, that maximize happiness, and that minimize current and future suffering.

Well, that's my point of view, Tim. It's a complex issue. I don't pretend to have all the answers. Also, I share your moral disdain for those who approach sex irresponsibly. But I think this is one of those issues that we have to agree to disagree about.

Post 15

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 3:59pm

Hi Matt,
You wrote:
"As far as I know, I have no rights whatsoever in the matter, not if the woman owns her life and her body absolutely. I have no right to impregnate a woman who doesn't want to be impregnated. This leaves me two choices: I can keep my penis out of the woman's vagina, or -- if I must have intercourse -- let the woman pursue an abortion if she wants to. It's her body."

This gets to an issue beyond immediate definition of human rights in that once a child is introduced to the equation, its role does impact on the parents and as far as I know, Objectivism has never broached the issues of who has control of the child, what the rights of a young child (after gestation) might be or what legal obligation parents actually have to their child. I want to concentrate on the other questions you raise first.

You wrote:
"Yes, the fetus is still human. However, up until around 7 to 9 months of development it is wholly dependent on another's body for survival. Would I have a right to live if I had to depend on your body for support and you were unwilling?"

That is exactly the point I was making -biologically, humans have no choice in how they gestate children. Nature has dictated that the mother carry the fetus and that fetus is wholly dependent on its mother for the time of gestation. No amount of wishing will make it otherwise, it is simply a fact of nature. Period. That is how humans and most mammals reproduce, that is a part of the human developmental cycle. There is no pretending this doesn't exist. If a human wants to reproduce, this is currently the only way. That is why it is so critically important that a woman is responsible for her choices, this isn't a game.

YOU Matt, as you are an adult and no issue of my own efforts would most certainly not be welcome to depend on my body (well, my wife's body). I, however accept the fact of nature that if Joy and I decide to have a baby, it includes having that baby be fully dependent on her for 9 months in utero and then many more years ex utero. Why flail against the way nature works? As to a question of unwillingness, I would hope that Joy would keep her legs closed if she was unwilling to carry a child for those 9 months. In our case, Joy would never allow herself to become pregnant unless she was willing to deal with the consequence of her choice. She does take full responsibility for her body and I respect that she does so.

I am baffled as to why Objectivists, in particular, rail against the facts of nature and act as if having a baby is so unnatural, life threatening, an initiation of force and generally the most unwelcome burden one can imagine. Having children is what people do. If one chooses not to have children, fine. Having a baby in the way that we do is a fact of nature.

We have enough knowledge to understand the entire process of impregnation and how to avoid it if we really have no desire to sire progeny. It isn't as if women are mystically visited and secretly impregnated by God or something. Well, supposedly the Virgin Mary was but that is water under the bridge for most people. The point is, rights have responsibilities and when you are speaking of human life and the termination of it, that responsibility should be very carefully examined.

You acknowledge that a fetus is a human, and yet say let the woman pursue an abortion if she wants to. It's her body. .

You acknowledge that a fetus is human, and yet condone the choice of abortion. Why? Because it�s the woman�s body? Thus, you would choose to sacrifice the rights of one individual for the happiness of another? If that is what you want, then call abortion a political expedience, and be prepared for the consequences of where this first step in sacrificing one individual�s rights for another will lead.

Tim

Post 16

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 4:23pm

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 4:39pm

Tim, I am not willing to accept the premise that an unborn child has the same rights as a adult woman. An adult is aware of existence around her and of her own existence. She can reason, and deal with concepts. Now, I am not primarily a biologist, so I am probably wrong, but as as far as I know the unborn are neither self-aware nor aware of existence around them. They do not reason, and for most of their development their brains do not process at any level above that of animal instinct. Because of this, I am not willing to accord to an unborn child the rights of a fully developed adult.

I will grant that most of the same can be said for infants and even toddlers. However, infants and toddlers begin to gain awareness both of reality and themselves from the first breath they draw on their own. Life begins at conception, but to my knowledge the mind begins at birth.

No, women do not reproduce via parthenogenesis, or golden rains from Mt. Olympus, or even plain old-fashioned magic. I understand that it is part of our nature to reproduce in a certain method. I don't think that I have ever said that the woman wasn't responsible for her actions. Yes, the woman could have used contraception, engaged in sex that did not involve intercourse, or simply abstained.

However, I maintain that it's not my place, or yours, or that of $DEITY to tell individual women what to do with their bodies. As far as I'm concerned, adult women have rights and the unborn do not because women are conscious and the unborn are not. I stand by my opinion that women have the right, by virtue of their self-ownership, to choose abortion and live with the consequences. It's her body, her right to choose, and her responsibility to live with the consequences.

Post 18

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 4:50pm

Barry,

I'll begin with a question I've never seen answered: Why do we need to draw a line arbitrarily for the purpose of defining which stage of human development is worthy of being assigned rights? Is abortion attempting to solve some social or political problem? Does abortion or the lack of right to an abortion serve some purpose which has remained unstated? Is the concept of individual rights subject to the law of the day or is it something more immutable? If the purpose of legal abortion is to deal with some societal problem I would see that very much as a case of the ends justifying the means. If society is having some problem that needs to be addressed by sacrificing the rights of some for the sake of others, well, that isn't the only problem with that society then.

Barry:
Because otherwise we find ourselves having to confront an absurdity: that there is no significant difference between a human conceptus and an adult.

You are correct, this is an absurdity. There are significant differences between an embryo, a fetus, a newborn and so on. However, biologically we recognize that these differences exist, and we study them, to understand the differences. These difference are all part of the biological development of a human. Why would one stage of development not be as protected as another? What exact purpose is served by negating the rights of one or more stages of human development?

Next, you commented:
A conceptus is not the equal of an adult person, nor a teenager, pre-teen, toddler, infant or newborn. They are similar in only one respect: genetic identity. But genetic identity is totally irrelevant to the concept of rights.

Here, I must disagree. The single common element between all of us is our genetic identity. It and only it is what is the common thread between all men. To not acknowledge this as the common basis for definition of what a human is opens up the possibility of others arguing that some other (non-genetic) basis is sufficient to sacrifice the rights of one individual for the happiness of another. I suspect you can see where a subjective criteria for defining humanness will lead?

I am interested in hearing how genetic identity is totally irrelevant to the concept of rights. What then does define the rights we have?

Moving on:
Now I accept that many of the features I mentioned above do not apply to a newborn baby either so I anticipate that you might ask, �Why then does a newborn have rights but not an unviable fetus?� And my answer is, unfortunately, bound to be unsatisfying: since we are up against the limitations of our psychology, epistemology and political theory, we have to choose a point at which to regard the fetus as a person -- not based on the hard facts of biological reality but on the soft facts of socio-political reality.

Your answer is similar to what I have been saying. Support of abortion is a political expedience, and as such should be treated in that way. Arguments that have been promoted by Objectivists and others on this issue that try to justify abortion because of a developmental difference between a newborn and a fetus are spurious, invoke incorrect premises, and deny the facts of biological reality.

What are the facts of socio-political reality? Choices and needs based on whim? Based on who is in power? Some other objective or subjective measure?

For similar reasons, �rights of the fetus� is a contradictory phrase. The context of rights and the context of fetus are too different to allow the one to be applied to the other.

How is it a contradictory phrase? The context of rights are that an individual has specific �rights�. If a fetus is a human, an individual, different from you and me, at a different stage of development, it has certain rights. As one develops and matures, one gains more �rights� and has the ability to exercise these rights. That is why society has drawn (in my opinion) a series of capricious ages (at 16 you can drive, at 18 you can vote and at 21 you can buy a beer). We acknowledge that the developmental process correlates (very loosely) with maturity to exercise more rights and take a greater responsibility for one�s actions.

I think my biggest question here is what is so important about abortion that it is presented as a socio-political necessity. Necessary for what? For whom? What does it address?

Tim

Post 19

Thursday, January 23, 2003 - 5:28pm