North Texas Objectivist Society (NTOS) Message Board › Question about Objectivists

Question about Objectivists

Lathanar
Lathanar
Dallas, TX
Post #: 3
I went looking through past threads for this, really kind of curious. What would everyone consider to be the 'correct' stance on abortion as far as Objectivist thinking goes.
A former member
Post #: 231
Lathanar,

As far as I can tell Objectivists seem to think it is ok to have an abortion up untill the child is born & the Dr. smacks that baby on the but, and the gov has no right to stop them from doing this. It appears that as long as the baby is inside the woman it is considered part of the woman. I may be wrong on this. Yet that seems to be the way it is. I however have do not agree with them on this topic. I also have found out as of late that I am not an Objectivists. Therefore I can not speek for them on this topic nor any other. I would however like to know when they think life begins.


Jamie
Chad
prorescue
Norman, OK
Post #: 14
Even if a fetus had rights (and I don’t think it does) it would be physically impossible to uphold or defend those rights without violating the rights of the mother which is an actual person, not a potentiality. When pressed on this issue, right to lifers often want to pass laws which would imprison a woman for attempting, seeking or having an abortion. When pressed further, they often say they would not want this to apply to their wife, daughter or mother and that they would actively help them to evade authorities. At least this is the response I most typically get when I press right to lifers on what their beliefs would actually mean in real life.
A former member
Post #: 13
Hi Lathaner (spelling?),

My first thought was that Objectivists, in my experience, are sort of an "anti-group," if you will, so I don't think questions regarding a "correct" stance would apply. This does not, however, mean that there is not a correct answer.

I agree with Jamie and Chad regarding this issue, particularly in that this is an issue of liberty for women, and that outlawing abortion would be immoral because there is no rational claim that a potential human being can make against its host. The host is an actual human being. Chad uses the word "potentiality," and that is a critical word in this argument: the embryo or fetus is a potentiality, and its host mother is an actuality.

Moreover, it would be immoral to legally subjugate a woman to the functions of her body, whether we're talking about an embryo, fetus, or appendix.

I do have personal feelings about the issue, however, which as yet I am unable to resolve or reconcile with the logic that I have outlined above: when the reason is solely birth control, partial-birth abortions and abortions done in the third trimester are extremely disturbing to me. If I were the father in these situations, I would fight it.

But I cannot bring myself to advocate a legal ban in any situation whatsoever.
Powered by mvnForum

Suggested Annual Donation

$10.00 (after 6 event visits)

This covers: Supporting operating expenses and advertising for new members!

Payment is accepted using:

  • PayPal
  • Cash or check - “Please give any cash or check to any Organizer at an event. We also accept BitCoin: 14sioRkdEBcvvQavE4zbDbSwbsvscPAvF9 Thanks!

Your organizer will refund you if:

  • Each event may have a specific refund policy based on the nature of the event. General donations are not refundable. We may rely on any payment, so if you have any questions please ask an Organizer BEFORE making a payment!

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy