Peikoff on Abortion Rights
I thought this would be interesting to discuss.
My opinion is that we do not have the right to legislate complicated moral issues. Do you own your body?
My opinion is that we do not have the right to legislate complicated moral issues. Do you own your body?
My point is, I made MY decision and I don't know nor care, what decisions other people make in this area.
it wasn't luck. it was fate
The birth mother was a college student, as was the father. It was a 50/50 chance I could have never been born, but I would not know it if I hadn't been. As a mother, I CANNOT IMAGINE what agony she went through to give up her baby. That very thought had crossed my mind after each of my own children were born. They are also my only known blood relatives. I also miscarried before I had had a full term pregnancy with my first born, my son.
I could not consider having an abortion after having experienced that unless my own life was in peril. I still would not ever presume to tell anyone else they can't have that choice for themselves. I am not them, I don't know their circumstances, and it would be the highest form of egotism to think I had that right.
I'm sure there were times when I was a teenager they didn't feel that way!
That's pretty amazing about your second son. Nice way to remember the day. Mine was Bill Clinton's second inauguration.... A sign????
"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"
The science parts can be argued against. Abortion is more often than not wrong, but is a choice only an individual can make in her unique context. the government can't legislate it, but an abortion should very rarely be had
how do you know this? what moral imperative are you using to make that statement? big of you, letting her make a choice in her unique context-but she's "wrong"
"she" is living, breathing, a human being of her own volition. can she take birth control? if you say yes, how do you think birth control works?
Abortion is more often than not wrong because human life is a value. Yes, a fetus is not an actual human life, but it is the first stage of development in a new human life. That is a value.
Now, if carrying the child to term harms the woman's life, that is a valid reason for an abortion. I can't possibly know every context of every individual and how carrying a child harms her life, which is why it's her choice. It's no different from how individuals are left to decide what harms their lives on their own because only an individual can truly knows what harms/helps her/his own life.
most parents are going to value and love their children. we don't need a legal obligation
we can discuss human life vs not human life. that potential life has value is a separate argument.
you do not have a right to decide that someone else has to sacrifice their life because YOU think they should do something. this is the same argument used for every social welfare argument, and will lead to the same disastrous consequences
she takes on the responsibility of deciding to terminate the pregnancy,.
if I'm in an accident, I take responsibility for fixing the other drivers car and mine as well. I don't have to just live with a crashed up car.
The better use of your metaphor would be, using abortion to terminate any pregnancy you feel like terminating is like driving a car recklessly and saying "as long as I can pay for the damages, it doesn't matter who I hit." With that mentality you're abdicating responsibility for a possible outcome of driving before it happens. When you drive it's important to try your hardest to not get into accidents, not just be able to pay for accidents when you do get into them, because the effects of an accident are more often than not more than monetary.
you are making a moral assumption that sex should only occur if you are willing to raise a child. birth control is not 100%. a woman should be allowed to have sex without the risk of having a baby. you should not be able to decide her risks or responsibilities in that regard.
This is a personal matter that really only involves the woman who is pregnant, the man she conceived with and the doctor that would perform the abortion. Each must be comfortable with the choice. If one of those three is not they could bring the courts in to help decide the outcome, but otherwise the government has no place in forcing a doctor to perform murder, or a woman to keep the child she does not want.
I am odd in that I take this view through any of the childhood years where the child is unable to fend for itself. A two year old is just as dependent on someone else as a unborn baby. Without someone to care for it, the child will die. If the parents wish to abandon the child and no one wishes to step up to take care of the child should the government get involved there? Once again I say no.
It is up the people directly involved as to if they perceive the need to protect that child who cannot protect itself or let them parish, or even assist in there deaths as in the chines dying rooms.
When I am not personally involved my opinion means nothing. That is what many people in this country need to learn about a great many things; abortion being a good example.
Every person must make there own choice as to when life begins. Once life has begun it is murder to snuff it out.
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/fe...
Agreed.
When you establish a precedent of dehumanizing those at the margins, who's next for arbitrary termination? The old, the crippled? The non-sheep?
I have previously posted ARs views on this subject. just because human life has value, does not mean you have to support it. I would further my argument, there should not be a law that you have to support your kids. Reality is the wealthier a society is, the more value human life has and the more willing people are to take on obligation. ex: I have a baby where starvation is certain , does someone else die for my baby?
a need does not create a right. to exist does not mean claim against the rest of the world.
I do believe it's in my rational self interest to nurture and raise my fetuses, babies, and children. and I would appeal to those considering abortion that it's in their rational self interest to carry the fetus to term.
I disagree strongly with this statement.
I say this, and I must put out there that I am personally against most abortions. but no way am I making that decision at the point of a gun for another person who is living, walking this earth.
on one hand, we are discussing govt control in talk of repealing RoevWade.. on the other hand, in this day and age, where most in our country are relatively well off, and there are many couples who can't have children and want them, it makes sense to have a strong legal structure to allow mother to get paid for her risk and effort to give birth. there are a million circumstances that would be wise for our laws to clarify. ie. see the sperm donor post. Govt should provide a clear path for encouraging adoptions. to steal someone else's word, right now it's mishmashy.
that is not mural.der. no one has to sacrifice their life for anyone else. EVER. life does not begin at conception. tell me your science showing the fetus is an independent human being and not a potential human being. happy conception day.
even if I grant it is a human being, humans do not have a right to exist at the expense of another. if you r taking my blood to survive, and I say no, that is not murder.
no one would even suggest you can't slowly cut off inches only at a time of tape worm so they can't reproduce in your body if yu cut them off too soon. eeeehhhhh.
I'm going to have a nightmare tonight.
But, the horror of having it there compares in some cases to what the pregnant person. Put yourself in the bodies of the women who were gang raped in India. Do you really think they have anything but revulsion and abhorrence for what will be a constant reminder of the brutality and inhuman behaviour of the pigs that did that to them? I would not only have an abortion, but a hysterectomy after that.
2. aborting is not killing. just because I cut off support is not equal to killing
3. if I kill in war or self defense, not murder? you're willing to pick off a liberal if they look at you funny :)
Here is an actual website (via The Ayn Rand Lexicon) that actually shares her written opinions about her support of abortion rights and disdain for 'pro-life' extremists.
Here's a few teasers:
"An embryo has no rights"
"A child cannot attain any rights until it is born"
"Abortion is a moral right"
"Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
"A proper, philosophically valid definition of man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells."
All citations and further readings are on the following site:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/aborti...