Questions concerning abortion:
What is abortion?
Abortion is the termination of pregnancy by the induced removal of an embryo or fetus (that is incapable of survival outside the body of the woman) which results in the death of the embryo/fetus.
What is the essential political issue concerning abortion?
The essential political question concerning abortion is: does the fetus have a right to be in the body of a woman against the will of the woman? Or: does a woman's body belong to her, or to the government to forcibly dispose of in favor of the fetus?
Doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside the body of the woman?
A fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time, because her womb is part of her body. Permissions are not rights. There is no such thing as the right to live inside the body of another, i.e. there is no right to enslave. Contrary to the opinion of anti-abortion activists (falsely called "pro-lifers" as they are against the right to life of the actual human being involved) a woman is not a breeding pig owned by the state (or church). Even if a fetus were developed to the point of surviving as an independent being outside the pregnant woman's womb, the fetus would still not have the right to be inside the woman's womb.
What applies to a fetus, also applies to a physically dependent adult. If an adult—say a medical welfare recipient—must survive by being connected to someone else, they may only do so by the voluntary permission of the person they must be connected to. There is no such thing as the right to live by the efforts of someone else, i.e., there is no such thing as the right to enslave.
Questions concerning rights:
What is the source of all rights?
Rights are scientific, moral principles that guarantee freedom of action in a social context. The source of an individual's right to life is one's nature as a rational being. Rights are requirements necessary for an individual to live as a rational being (human) in a society of men (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal).
Is abortion a right?
Abortion is an inalienable right. Abortion is not a violation of any right, because there is no such thing as the freedom to live inside (or outside) of another human being as a parasite, i.e., against the will of that person.
This principle applies to both fetuses and adults. As a woman has a right to choose who she has sex with (as her body is her property), so is it a woman's right to choose what can and cannot remain inside her body (as her body is her property). As it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by raping her, so it is evil for someone else to dictate the use of her body by forcing her to remain pregnant.
As their is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.
Is abortion murder?
Murder is the taking of the life of another human being through the initiation of physical force. Abortion is not murder, because a fetus is not an actual human being—it is a potential human being, i.e. it is a part of the woman. The concept murder only applies to the initiation of physical force used to destroy an actual human being, such as when "pro-life" terrorists bomb abortion clinics.
Isn't the fetus "life", and thus has a right to life?
A right is a moral sanction to freedom of action in a social context. Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings survive by the use of reason (unlike cows, trees, bacteria—and fetuses). Rights only apply to human beings, because only human beings—and not parts of beings—survive by reason. A fetus has no rights, as it does not need freedom to take any actions, but survives on the sustenance of its host. The only rational action it must take is nothing, i.e. wait for itself to develop using the sustenance provided by its host.
What is the capitalist view on abortion?
Under capitalism (a social system based on the principle of individual rights) abortion is an inalienable right. Any one who advocates the outlawing of abortion (especially in the first few months of pregnancy)—like Steve Forbes—is an enemy of individual rights in principle, and thus an enemy of capitalism. As for those on the Left, who think one can have a right to property without a right to one's body, they are guilty of context dropping.
Questions concerning the fetus:
What is a fetus?
The concept fetus is used to denote the unborn human from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo (the product of conception from implantation in the uterus through the eighth week of development). A fetus contains all the organs and has the basic human form.
Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is human, in the sense that it contains human DNA; however, a fetus, like an embryo, is not a human being, as it has no means of independent physiological existence (as does a baby, child, or adult). As such, it is a potential human being, just like an acorn is a potential oak tree. It contains all of the DNA of an oak tree, but it is not an oak tree (See also Leonard Peikoff on Abortion: Real Audio).
Is a fetus a human being because it has a complete set of human DNA?
A fetus is a potential human being, and not an actual individual, because it does not have physiological independence outside its host—the pregnant woman.
(Toward the end of a woman's pregnancy, a fetus does have the physiological means to live independently outside its host, the pregnant women, which makes the birth of a healthy child possible, though it remains physically dependent until birth. At birth the fetus becomes a physically independent baby/child.)
Doesn't a fetus have rights because it is "life"?
Life is a state of a cell or organism characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction. A fetus is life, just as an embryo, a sperm, an ant, an acorn, and a tree, are all life. All these forms of life have no rights. The characteristic of life is necessary to possess rights, but it alone is insufficient (see below).
Is a fetus an independent being?
A being is a physically independent entity. A fetus is physically/physiologically dependent on the woman (host) for its survival—especially during the early stages of pregnancy. Only upon birth is it physically independent of the woman's body, an actual independent being. A baby, in contrast, though 'socially' dependent on the actions of other human beings for its survival, is physiologically and physically independent of the body of its mother.
(An argument can be made that a viable fetus that is fully developed (physiologically independent), but still inside the womb (physically dependent), should not be aborted, but should be delivered early.)
Is a baby a fetus?
A baby, infant, or child, is not a fetus. A baby is an actual human being. A baby, or adult, is a fetus actualized, just like a young oak tree is an acorn actualized.
Questions concerning sex and choice:
If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?
The short answer is no. To understand why let us take the worse case situation: suppose a young college girl is brutally gang raped by a mob of college students (who were taught by their philosophy professor that morality is a matter of numbers—and there are ten of them, and one of her) resulting in the girl becoming pregnant.
According to the view implied in the question, the fetus she carries would have no rights because she did not "choose to have sex." So she would be justified in killing the fetus, because she was raped, and did not "choose to have sex." This begs the question: was it the fault of the fetus that the girl was raped? Did the fetus choose its means of conception? Of course not. So why destroy the fetus, because the woman did not choose to become pregnant?
The problem with such an argument is that it brings down the abortion question down from a question of rights to the matter of competing non-choices: the rights of the woman because of her non-choice of becoming pregnant versus the "rights" of the fetus because of it's non-choice in deciding on whether to be conceived.
According to this view, the source of ones right to life is whether ones parents chose to have consensual sex or not. This is nonsense. Rights are based on the fact of man's nature as a rational being, and not on the sexual inclinations of one's parents.
This brings us back to the original question: "If a woman chooses to have sex with a man, and she becomes pregnant, then doesn't a fetus have a right to be inside her?"
Clearly, if the woman chooses to have sex, there would be no justification for her being forced to carry the fetus, as the essential issue is not a matter of sexual history, but a matter of rights. As there is no such thing as the right to live inside another, whether the fetus is removed, because of incest, or rape, or "convenience" does not matter politically—whatever the reason, it is the woman's inalienable right.
Are abortion rights are based on the sexual choices of ones parents?
The source of the right to life is not the choices of one's parents, e.g. a two year old child's rights are not based on any decisions made by its parents. The source of the right to life is one's nature as a rational being (see Man's Rights by Ayn Rand, published in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal). Similarly, a fetus' lack of rights, are based on its nature as human tissue—and not on the choices of those who brought it into being.
The fact is that either the fetus has a right to be inside a woman by its nature, or it does not—the issue of whether the girl chose to have sex, or not, is irrelevant. The proper response to the "choose to have sex" argument is to dismiss such an argument as irrelevant.
Questions concerning children:
Do children have rights?
Children, unlike fetuses, do possess individual rights. A new born child, unlike a fetus, is a physically separate entity. A child is an actual human being, with a capability to reason, and thus a child has the same right to life as any adult. However, the application of this right for a young child differs in practice from that of an adult, as a child's conceptual faculty is not fully developed. This is why a six year old girl does not have the right to choose to enter into a sexual relationship—and an adult does.
Why does a child, or adult, have a right to life, and not a fetus?
A child, like an adult, exists as a physically independent entity. A fetus cannot exist as a sovereign entity, but requires a host to survive. A fetus' so called right to life boils down to the "right to remain in the womb"—and such a "right" is only possible by the violation of the actual right of the pregnant woman to her body. In contrast, observe that a child's right to life does not contradict the rights of anyone else. The principle here is that any alleged "right" that by nature entails the violation of the rights of another is not a right. There is no such thing as "trading one's rights for the rights of others." Proper rights, i.e., rights that are objectively defined, are non-contradictory.
Do parents own their children like they own their house?
Parents do not own their children, but are their guardians. Guardians are individuals who make decisions for the child—in the child's best interest—until the child's mind is developed enough so that the child can make decisions for himself. If a parent gives birth to a child—and claims to be its guardian (which is the prerogative of the parent)—then that parent is responsible for taking care of the child, unless the parent revokes guardianship, and turns the child over to someone else for adoption.
who are you?
Re: Get an abortion, go to jail...but for how long?
Originally Posted by The Knight 2100
The Voice of Reason
Citizen
Comes Limitis
Artifex
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
