In order to determine if abortion is evil or not, we need to understand what exactly makes murder evil, or what exactly separates acceptable killing of life from unacceptable killing of life. That question is essentialy a moral question (deals with values, not facts), thus cannot be answered purely by biology / medicine. It requires a value (moral) system. What properties or attributes should a system have to receive rights (such as right to not be terminated)? Here are some common opinions: 1. being alive 2. having human DNA 3. being able to survive on its own (external viability) 4. having some form of mind (being sentient) 5. having human-like mind (not necessarily human DNA) 6. being conscious in the philosophical sense (aware of the external world, having wants and desires etc.. in essence having more advanced mind) 7. various combinations of the above (from which either all or at least one must be fulfilled in order for a system to be considered a person) This is what the question of abortion essentially boils down to. We can argue all day about semantical definitions and accuse each other of supporting murder / being mysogynist, but it wont lead nowhere when we dont recognize fundamental difference of opinions about from what exactly rights should stem from. I think it should be 5, or maybe 4. I consider "being alive" too vague and ultimately unimportant, and "having human DNA" as a speciecist and carbon-chauvinist stance which would exclude hypothetical sentient aliens or mind-uploaded transhumans from having rights, while pointlessly protecting non-sentient human organisms (since having mind is a basic prerequisite for granting rights for me). Discuss.
No one "receives" rights. Individuals HAVE them. Even criminals have them. The lesson in Ayn Rand's theory of rights is debated here: ObjectivismOnline thread on 'Broken units, broken men' From post #108 Probably the best articulation of the theory I've ever seen.
No he didn't because I'm not debating the merits of an argument that a fetus is a rights bearing person. I was correcting a misinformed view of what a right is.
What gives a person rights? Birth. A fetus can be given more rights when it reaches viability, although those rights should not extend to not being aborted.
In the USA, God gives us rights. At least according to our founding fathers and the Declaration of Independence.
So you would be OK with aborting 9 months old baby identical in every attribute to a newborn just because it has not yet passed through mothers vagina? It seems so arbitrary. I dont see any reason to not give a fetus full rights at least when the external viability limit is passed (any abortion can simply be substituted with removing the child from uterus and not killing it in such case).
By rights, I mean if a baby is to be aborted beyond the point of viability, a good reason should be given.
You're really going to allow, for frivolous reasons, removing a fetus which might survive but will suffer from disabilities its whole life just because it wasn't allowed to mature in the womb?
They actually are individuals, read the Unborn Victims of Violence Act. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_Victims_of_Violence_Act Actual text of the law: "(a) (1) Whoever engages in conduct that violates any of the provisions of law listed in subsection (b) and thereby causes the death of, or bodily injury (as defined in section 1365) to, a child, who is in utero at the time the conduct takes place, is guilty of a separate offense under this section."
Where in that text is the definition? Seek remedial reading help if you do not understand written language.
I quoted a poster in a thread on another forum, not Rand but if what is stated is in error, prove it wrong. I thought he was correct.
Rights stem from self-ownership. No one, not a God or government, gives them to you. At what point does the self-ownership of the unborn in the womb take precedence over the self-ownership of the woman carrying the child?
It's the self-ownership argument. I think Rand takes it to an extreme, and it's right to argue that one cannot simply kill a trespasser on one's property as a means of expelling him when other means are available and not exhausted. This is particularly true if you invite someone into your home and then, asking them to leave, they refuse. Similarly, a viable child in the womb should be given alternatives, which can be provided by those willing to take the child as their own. So, when the fetus is viable, it is only just if the woman, seeking to terminate the pregnancy, finds someone willing to take the child through a medical procedure which protects the life of the child.
The DOI says that rights are endowed by "their Creator", which may or may not be God (and they refer to "Nature's God", not "God" as a deity.) It's a naturalist view of rights. The endowment is God's unconditional love and mercy which makes all men equal, hence the "self-evident" rights. Even without a personal, interceding God, but instead "Nature's God", all men are equal with the same rights because nature does not set one above another.
OK, so rights stem from "self-ownership". Define "self-ownership". What separates systems capable of self-ownership from systems incapable of self-ownership? Is it a presence of mind?
