Roe v. Wade is history

Post Reply New Topic

What about all the fathers who are pro-choice and would support their partner’s choice to have an abortion?

Men are allowed to have sex and create life without having to sacrifice their body for up to nine months, and without having the government force them to carry unwanted children. Men can walk away from sex whether it's consensual or forced, without public shaming and without even knowing a baby was conceived.

I know it's the nature of biology that men can't get pregnant. I respect that and I'm not blaming men for their lack of uterus. I'm saying that men have rights and abilities that women don't. Since we can't make men conceive babies in an effort for equality, the only reasonable way to achieve equal autonomy is to give women choice.

Denying women the right to an abortion is telling them what they can’t do with their bodies.

Exactly, which is something men don't have to deal with.

No one tells men they have to have a conjoined twin attached to them, or that they have to incubate another human against their will or to their own mental and physical detriment.

Maybe the problem is that this is hard for some people to conceptualize, especially if they lack working knowledge on the topic. There certainly seems to be a lack of understanding about the topic of pregnancy and the toll that can have on a person.

On the other hand, that shouldn’t really matter. Even if women had easy pregnancies (and no nonconsensual situations), they still should have the right to bodily autonomy.

I think the pro-life lobby look at the developing embryo/fetus as separate from the woman. By bestowing life on the fertilised embryo it magically becomes an independent person (not part of the woman).

Playing the devil's advocate the MAGA nutters could say you are in control of your eggs but the moment it becomes fertilised then god has taken over and it's alive. Suddenly the embryo is like a child and your uterus is just temporary housing. As a mother you are responsible for keeping the embryo alive just like you would be responsible for feeding a baby.

Humans in the womb are not people and therefore don’t have human rights. Prioritising them over actual people is ethically colour blind.

Even Ayn Rand was pro-choice:

Given that you have, on many occasions, claimed that you view the moral teachings of Ayn Rand as objectively correct, do you accept that she was objectively correct on this instance too?

Frankly, it is evil to suggest that women should be slaves to embryos who have done nothing to deserve life. Nobody who cares about women’s consent would ever do so. Those who are anti-abortion nearly always view women as sub-human, and therefore I don’t see why anyone should treat their views with respect.

This is a really thorny issue.

Every embryo equally “deserves life.” It’s never that they don’t “deserve life.” I’m fortunate I wasn’t aborted, and allowed to live.

It’s quite unfortunate when a “choice” must be made. It is certainly hoped that the unborn person doesn’t suffer because of the procedure.

I truly wish, actually, that the “morning after pill” was universally available. This would go a long way towards making this issue moot.

And, of course, people should be extremely vigilant if both the man and the woman don’t want a pregnancy.

It’s an issue where there are no winners.

A. That's not entirely reliable.
B. It seriously disrupts the endocrine system and should not be used frequently.

Of course, I wouldn't advocate "frequent use."

But it's still a heck of a lot better than the alternative.

The classic objectivist view is built on the principle of independent agency and that no individual has the right to threaten that agency. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

What happens in cases of abortion is that an unwanted baby arguably impacts one’s agency. However, this argument assumes a perspective that doesn’t allow for the logical possibility that a person with a baby is autonomous whether he or she has a baby or not. This view also conflicts with other logical conclusions that are crucial to objectivist philosophy.

First of all, objectivism holds that children are extensions of the parent. You wouldn’t reasonably cut off your children any more than you cut off your arm or liver. The exception to this is when doing so is within someone’s rational self-interest to do so. Killing your baby is no more within one’s rational self interest than committing an act of self-harm or even suicide. For the objectivist, it is paramount that even if it is irrational to destroy himself a man must still have that right. For Ayn Rand, the ability to cut off one’s own genitalia, get a full sleeve tattoo, sleep with prostitutes, have sex with your pet dog, burn your house down, etc. are no different than killing a baby. Disgusting, perverted, irrational, unintelligent, painful even, but you must be allowed the freedom to be stupid, irrational, and self-destructive.

You’ll find that OG objectivism supports the freedom to do all kinds of things—homosexuality, transgender rights, abortion, atheism. You’ll note that whether you are a Leonard Peikoff objectivist or a David Kelley objectivist, these leading strands of objectivism are often in agreement on these issues. An objectivist is not called on to become LGBTQIA+ himself. An objectivist is not called on to agree with abortion or have one. An objectivist isn’t expected to take a moral stand on those issues since morality is only defined as that which is within your rational self-interest.

But many of these moral hills that objectivists choose to die on aren’t rational. The individual’s right to life is the premier objective standard upon which all reason depends. Children are extensions of their parents, yet objectivists also recognize that they are themselves independent agents and individuals themselves with the same recognized rights as their parents. While abortion is irrational because it is self-destructive, objectivists recognize one’s right to behave irrationally. However, abortion also destroys individuals who have an identity apart from their parents. Objectivists will agree that one’s rational self-interest is only bounded by the rational self-interest of others. You may own and use a firearm; you may not use that firearm to kill another human being without a reasonable, justified cause. Killing a baby because gestation and delivery will certainly kill the mother is reasonable and justified every bit as much as removing a cancerous organ or gangrenous limb, as is the death penalty for murder, as is protecting yourself from another person’s initiation of force by responding in kind. Killing a baby because they might affect you mentally or emotionally is no more reasonable or justified than killing a school bully for calling you names, the neighbor’s kids for annoying you, an ex-lover for cheating on you, or a supervisor for passing you over for a pay raise or promotion.

There is a conflict between individual agency and right to life, two things objectivists claim to value above all else. Ayn Rand herself would say contradictions do not exist. When it comes to abortion, at least one premise of classic objectivism is wrong.

What evidence is there that foetuses are independent agents who have an identity apart from their parents? All the neuroscience and developmental biology (not to mention human experience) suggests that they don’t develop that until infancy.

Irrelevant. They are a human being. They are entitled to a right to life.

Not if they have to use someone's body against their will...otherwise that would give a fetus more rights than anyone who has been born.

Well why don't Americans all agree to disagree and just be ok with whatever the majority vote is by people of their states?

Why can't people be happy with the most votes wins, rather than two major political sides competing with each other?

If pregnancy were unusual or extraordinary, I’d agree. It’s not unreasonable to expect someone who made the willful choice to conceive, when everyone knows conception is a possibility after having sex, to deliver the baby when the time comes. Since children can be fostered and adopted, the mother has no real obligation to the child. So on the one hand, abortion murders the child, and fostering/adoption give reluctant mothers an escape while still preserving the child’s life.

Also…the argument that a baby is using the mother’s body against her will is extremely weak. If you look at this from the angle of western justice, it is the goal of any justice system to ensure equal justice, to make sure that the punishment fits the crime.

Lex talionis—sometimes referred to “an eye for an eye,” or the punishment must fit the crime. A home intruder at night risks death since it is reasonably assumed he intends to murder the occupant. An intruder taken by surprise trying to flee, especially in broad daylight, poses no threat, so it is unreasonable to kill that one. Someone who commits robbery or embezzlement should at least be expected to repay what was stolen and pay damages. If someone through negligence causes you to dislocate your shoulder, he should pay your doctor bills and time off to recover. And so on and so forth.

EVEN IF we were talking about exceptional circumstances such as rape, the baby did not choose the circumstances of their conception. But normal conceptions are not exceptional. In those cases, the baby still had no control of how they were conceived. The baby is a product of circumstances the mother consented to, and therefore she bears responsibility. If she doesn’t want the baby, perhaps she shouldn’t be compelled to keep them.

I don’t have the right to kill someone for trespassing if they have no choice but to cross my property to get home. I don’t have the right to kill bullies or shoot up schools. The medical sharing company I paid thousands upon thousands in monthly contributions who has left us at the mercy of hospitals and bill collectors—I don’t have the right to Ohio and burn their office building down, even if they deserve it.

And a baby who had no say in its conception has certainly not committed a crime simply for existing. There is nothing unusual or exceptional about pregnancy and childbirth. There is no obligation to keep a child after birth. So if there is no need to kill a baby, if a baby has done nothing deserving of death, why kill the baby?

If the baby should be punished because it exists and the mother doesn’t want it, then find a punishment that fits the “crime.” The foster system has a poor reputation, but at least foster kids have a chance. You get sentenced 18 years for an ongoing crime committed over the course of 40 weeks. During those 18 years, you get three hots and a cot, an education with a high school diploma, and the opportunity to earn a college degree upon release. You can't freakin’ beat that! The criminal’s debt to society is paid and they are set on the right path to start a new life.

Killing a baby for a 40-week offense is more extreme than the death penalty for adult criminals. At least a death row inmate is responsible for causing death and is getting a merciful sentence as equivalent as possible for the murder he committed. If we can allow killing babies, why not extend the death penalty for rape, abandonment, and loss of affection? Or cut off a thief’s hand for stealing? Not even Biblical law was this brutal.