Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life
SPREAD THE WORD
| digg |
A woman has the right to control her own body.
This week hundreds of anti-abortionists will demonstrate outside Buffalo's abortion clinics, bookstores and high schools. Where is their moral opposition? Today, no one is defending the right to abortion in fundamental terms, which is why the pro-abortion rights forces are on the defensive.
Abortion-rights advocates should not cede the terms "pro-life" and "right to life" to the anti-abortionists. It is a woman's right to her life that gives her the right to terminate her pregnancy.
Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase "a woman's right to choose." Does she have the right to choose murder? That's what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person.
We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students.
That tiny growth, that mass of protoplasm, exists as a part of a woman's body. It is not an independently existing, biologically formed organism, let alone a person. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
("Independent" does not mean self-supporting -- a child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because it is an actual, separate human being.)
"Rights," in Ayn Rand's words, "do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born."
It is only on this base that we can support the woman's political right to do what she chooses in this issue. No other person -- not even her husband -- has the right to dictate what she may do with her own body. That is a fundamental principle of freedom.
There are many legitimate reasons why a rational woman might have an abortion -- accidental pregnancy, rape, birth defects, danger to her health. The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally -- but not treated as a murderer.
If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion, which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body.
If anti-abortionists object that an embryo has the genetic equipment of a human being, remember: so does every cell in the human body.
Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo.
Being a parent is a profound responsibility -- financial, psychological, moral -- across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that -- as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence.
The anti-abortionists' attitude, however, is: "The actual life of the parents be damned! Give up your life, liberty, property and the pursuit of your own happiness."
Sentencing a woman to sacrifice her life to an embryo is not upholding the "right-to-life."
The anti-abortionists' claim to being "pro-life" is a classic Big Lie. You cannot be in favor of life and yet demand the sacrifice of an actual, living individual to a clump of tissue.
Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life -- lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings.
Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. The Ayn Rand Institute promotes the philosophy of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Labels: Abortion


5 Comments >>
Post a CommentI enjoyed reading Mr. Peikoff's article on abortion, riddled with inaccuracies and tortured logic though it was. The image below of a ten week fetus is from National Geographic's website. Am I seeing things or do these cells look highly differentiated to you as well? There are many thoughtful pro-choice individuals who write about abortion (Ronald Dworkin, Camille Paglia, etc, etc.) who can offer your readers considerably more than Mr. Peikoff.
June 18, 2007 3:15 PMOne's judgment on whether we are the bearers of natural rights, which begin then as soon as we begin to be; whether there is a right to take life wholly for reasons of self-interest; whether a whole class of human beings can be removed from the class of rights-bearing beings simply by shifting the label, calling them "niggers" or "fetuses" or "vegetables" or a "mass of protoplasm"--from that central point, everything else radiates. Perhaps Mr Peikoff is also blisfully unaware that abortion in the United States is, practically speaking, legal throughout all nine months for any and no reason. There are over 130,000 second trimester abortions per year and most of these are done on a purely elective basis.
"But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body."
If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous.
Ten Weeks.
http://www.donkefant.com/img/jamie/inthewomb4.jpg
Twenty Weeks.
http://www.donkefant.com/img/jamie/18week.jpg
I'll stay tuned to Donekfant!
Concerning Ron Paul:
June 18, 2007 3:20 PMPhilosophically, I see holes where certain compromises and minor inconsistencies are present. Although, this is only the case in very few of his ideas. Abortion for example; his pro-life position stems from the idea of protection of the individual rights of the fetus. This is an incorrect application no doubt, but with an appropriate and virtuous premise. I do not worry about any sort of theocracy considering his religious standpoint... only because of his extreme commitment to the proper role of government. In a country where the role of government is put into its proper place, no harm can come from religious influence. The evil of any religious influence would have no way to influence in a country where the role of government is put into its proper place.
I'm not sure you can irrefutably claim Dr. Paul's premise of individual rights of a fetus are incorrectly applied. It's a question of semantics and science and personal beliefs.
June 18, 2007 3:31 PMTo me the question of, "is a fetus an individual" runs parallel to the bromide "how tall is the world's tallest midget." If one defines a midget as a person smaller than 4'6", the answer would be 4' 6," however if one believed a midget was a person smaller than 4' 4" the answer would be 4' 4". Both answers are correct based on the initial definition of a midget.
Such is the question of a fetus vs. an individual, should you choose to believe that a fetus is an individual at conception rather than at live birth, your answers would differ on abortion. Both answers stem from the same logic, but from different definitions. The point here is literal vs. figurative. Literally a fetus is an "individual" with 46 unique sets of chromosomes and all the genetic makeup to produce a fully-grown being. Figuratively an "individual" in this sense would be a living being only upon birth, when free-choice can be (somewhat) exercised.
The bottom line (as you pointed out) however, is that Dr. Paul recognizes the irreconcilable differences regarding this issue and wisely admits that the role of government has no right to meddle in this issue.
I cannot irrefutably dispute his isolated premise, and your arguments are valid, but as I said before I can however irrefutably claim an improper application given the context. The most potent problem is that these compromises are exactly what end up being utilized by our those who seek to exploit this example.
June 18, 2007 3:32 PMThe compromise here can best be described by an example I once heard from an acquaintance that worked in a planned parenthood:
When he began there they had a big meeting with all of the new employees where they asked them to some questions and had them stand between a series of numbers from 1 to 10 to answer. 10 being "I totally agree" and 1 being "I totally disagree" with all of the respective degrees in between. They were asked - "Do you believe abortion should be illegal?"
-everyone went to 1 "I totally disagree"
Then they were asked - "What about at 3 months into the pregnancy?"
-everyone stayed at 1
Then - "What about 5 months?"
-a couple people moved over to 2, 3, or 4
Then - "What about 6 months?"
-a couple more moved to higher numbers, but not 10
The questions kept on going and people kept on moving
I hate to bring in what my personal, initial actions would have been in this situation only because the context involved here demands objectivity. Personally, I would definitely have to think twice aborting a fetus at all. Although, I would never support a law being put in place to forcefully stop such an action from taking place. Here is why... Once one claims the possibility, anytime before a child is born, of a fetus being an individual, this opens a crack in the argument against such laws. The religious, the mystics, and the statists (those in favor of government intervention i.e. restrictions or subsidies) take this crack and open is wide up and will use that crack to say: "Well why not in a law imposed to forbid this freedom over one's own body in the 2nd trimester?" and this goes on and on until it is completely illegal.
But this is not even the most dangerous part of it. The most dangerous part is the opportunities that compromises such as these give to those who want to enact the more extreme invasions of individual rights. Compromises are more often than not synonymous with contradictions and one cannot utilize reason and logic with the presents of either.
From this one might realize the possible detrimental infringements that could take place but still ask: "How would people (doctors) who are okay with performing an abortion at extremely late times be stopped?" This requires a long answer that involves gorverment involvement in the medical system and I would be happy to answer in person.
I find it quite interesting, all these men claiming to defend a woman's "right to choose". I can tell you men, women KNOW they are pregnant long before it is "scientifically" considered a life. It's a knowing deep inside, that men will never be able to comprehend. A tissue, you claim? Then why would women know there is a life growing inside of them? Women know this! Just talk to women who have had abortions and you just may walk away with a different attitude. These women live a life of guilt, pain, and suffering, as a result of the abortion. These women know it was a life, and not a tissue. In this day and age of birth control, it is time men took responsibility in birth control as well as women. The answer is not in abortion. The problem does not end with the termination of the life inside. Oh that may very well terminate the problem for the men involved, but the pain and suffering of these women continues on for a life-time!
July 8, 2007 3:41 PMPost a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home