Abortion: Questions and Answers

May 06, 2022

Too many people make this observation: “A positive ‘right to abortion’ is nowhere in evidence in the Constitution”

This is a dangerous and treacherous route to traverse. If we only have the “rights” that are “in evidence in the Constitution,” then we really don’t possess much in the way of rights.

The Constitution doesn’t confer ANY rights to people. The rights to marriage, to eat, to sleep, to have sex, to work, to do much of anything are NOT in the Constitution. That doesn’t make those rights non-existent.

The Ninth and Tenth Amendments aren’t just afterthoughts. We have a semi-infinite number of rights that are not “in evidence in the Constitution.” To believe the latter is to imply that we can only do that which is explicitly mentioned in the Constitution. That is a complete inversion of what the Constitution is for: to place limits on the GOVERNMENT, not the people.

As for the rest, well, see my article (available on Amazon):

“Abortion: A Philosophical and Scientific Approach”

Among other things, I explore the following questions:

What are rights?
Why do we have/need rights (if we do)?
What foundational trait distinguishes humans from all other animals?
What physical characteristic makes that trait possible?
At what point in the development of a fetus does this characteristic first manifest itself in the brain?
That point is the MINIMUM demarcation between what it means to be a PERSON (in a very rudimentary, primitive sense with the possibility of having rights that need to be protected) and just a living entity that does not yet possess the uniquely HUMAN characteristic that differentiates us from any other living entities.
These facts are OBJECTIVE, even if the borderline of when this occurs can be somewhat fuzzy.

This point in gestation happens around six months. Before that, the fetus does not have the brain structures that even minimally qualify it for personhood, i.e., a being with rights. After that point, one can reasonably argue for restrictions against killing the fetus.

But, regardless, in the extremely rare cases after that point where it can be objectively shown that the woman’s life is in ACTUAL danger from the pregnancy, HER life, her ACTUAL independent existence takes precedence over any POTENTIAL that is physically, parasitically dependent on her being to exist.

It’s not “privacy” that underpins the right to abortion (though we do have such a right, whether “in evidence in the Constitution” or not), but personal autonomy arising from our SELF-OWNERSHIP. The burden of proof to ban ANY and ALL abortions is on those who DENY our right to self-ownership. Self-ownership is the DEFAULT position. I should think that this whole mask/vaccine mandate debacle should/would have made that fact crystal clear.

In “A Last Survey,” writer-philosopher Ayn Rand wrote, “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.” (emphasis added) She also wrote that, “Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication.” (emphasis in original) (Nov.-Dec., 1975, The Ayn Rand Letter.)

In Ayn Rand Answers (2005), Rand says, “I’d like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute—when a baby is formed—is a different issue.)”

This is most emphatically NOT an issue that should be “left to the states” to decide. Just because Y is not a federal issue does NOT mean states can AUTOMATICALLY pass laws about Y. That is not what the Tenth Amendment says or implies. That would just allow states to become localized tyrannies. Yes, certain issues are the bailiwick of states, for them to legally deal with, but they are PERMITTED to deal with/have jurisdiction over ONLY A LIMITED RANGE OF ISSUES, ONES THAT DO NOT VIOLATE FUNDAMENTAL INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS, ones that emerge from the ONLY proper purpose of government, i.e., to protect our rights from infringement by others, whether those others are individuals or arms of the State.

Both sides in this controversy commit the same violations of critical thinking: they rely on the Circular Argument Fallacy of assuming what they are obligated to prove: that an embryo/fetus (at stage X) is/is not a PERSON with RIGHTS that cannot/can be killed rather than murdered.

Relying primarily on faith-based principles is a gross violation of the principles of critical thinking. But that’s the main crutch used by those against any and all abortions. They have little else to fall back upon. Adherents have told me that people are not animals; that’s it’s wrong to compare/contrast humans and animals; that our rights emerge from the fact that we have “human blood”; and much more. Evasion and ignorance masquerading as “facts."

Anti-abortionists like to harp on the phrase “a human life.”

Well, duh. It IS a HUMAN embryo/fetus, after all, not a cabbage. And it’s obviously ALIVE.

A sperm is a living entity
An egg is a living entity
When these two entities merge, the resulting embryo is a living entity
The moment they merge, that embryo does not instantly acquire fundamental rights

The real issue is whether that living entity is a human BEING with VOLITION, thus, with fundamental HUMAN RIGHTS that should be protected.

As for the rabid other side who thinks it is okay to “abort” a 30-day old infant, well, they are just nuts. And evil.

ASSERTIONS without objective evidence or proof that even non-believers can evaluate are not arguments.

But such form the core of this "debate," the same tactics utilized by every statist and collectivist to push through the destruction of rights, freedom, and morality.

Until the cortical structures that provide the basis for volition and, hence, rights are developed after six months of gestation, no embryo or fetus can claim personhood. Both “pro-life” and “pro-choice” sides ignore the philosophical, scientific, and moral basis for rights and what defines a human being.

Will someone somewhere somehow learn philosophy, what rights are, the foundation of rights, how to apply them, and not just spout buzzwords and unthinking cliches to a complicated issue?

Is that too much to ask?

Apparently, since all I ever see on this topic are unfounded assertions and Circular Argument Fallacies.

Both sides in the abortion debate get it wrong. No one cares actually to examine the facts. They just repeat the same slogans and sound bites ad nauseum.

Neither side will answer honestly the questions I’ve raised.

Why?

Because both sides ignore reality, reason, facts, and philosophy in favor of their own blind prejudices.

Why bother with the complexities and application of the principles of critical thinking when it’s so much “easier” to make assertions than to prove their points?

It’s little wonder the rabid “no abortions anytime, anywhere!” crowd and “abortion always on demand even after birth” contingent hate each other: they’re flip sides of the same tarnished coin. (Oddly reminiscent of how the Nazis and the Communists in the 1930s were bitter rivals. Superficially, they were opponents. At the base, however, they promoted the same ideology of statism and collectivism. Each faction knew, however, that only one could ultimately win. So they did all in their power to destroy each other.) Neither side is truly for LIFE. They place their emotions, their bigotry, their arbitrary whims above the underlining requirement for life, an adherence to the unrelenting demands of REALITY, the only standard that allows us truly to flourish.

They have a conclusion they have accepted on the false basis of faith, either in God or in collectivism, and they will subordinate their minds, the requirements of reason, logic, and evidence, honesty and integrity in order to maintain the lie to which they have inextricably tied their personal identities and worth.

They are blind to facts. They are blind to evidence. They are blind to the betrayal of their own souls. They are oblivious to the obvious, so long as they can continue to clutch desperately to a position that defies reality, defies science, defies philosophy. The only principle they truly worship is the one that declares without self-awareness or shame the hypocritical bedrock of “I believe it, therefore it is true.” They have plenty of “reasons” they spew out: an unconnected hodgepodge of random assertions and strident proclamations that hang together about as well as a child’s Tinkertoy house.

All they actually succeed in accomplishing, however, is destruction: of themselves, of objectivity, of a peaceful society.

I hope the nihilistic subjectivism that allows them to sleep smugly confident at night is worth the cost of their very selves.

From a graphic I created on this topic:

Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion advocates often list the traits above [in the graphic] to claim that embryos/fetuses are fully “human beings” with rights; to kill one at any point is to commit murder. But other animals have those same traits. Do they have rights? If not, why not?

Pro-Choice/Pro-Abortion advocates say that—like other animals—at no point do embryos/fetuses have rights and thus can be killed at any time in the pregnancy (some even claiming it is okay to kill the newborn after birth). Why do they not have rights?

What (objectively) (non-religiously [as required by the principles of critical thinking]) distinguishes/differentiates humans from other animals? What is the foundation (the basis) for our rights? What are rights? Why do we have them? These rights are what makes killing an innocent human being murder. When does (if it does) a human embryo/fetus develop the (minimal) capacity/trait/attribute necessary to transform it into a human being and make (any) rights possible (on at least a rudimentary level)?

Both sides commit a Circular Argument/Begging the Question Fallacy by assuming what they need to prove, i.e., that fetuses/embryos do/do not have rights and thus cannot/can properly be killed.

Russell Madden: Freedom, As If It Mattered

Abortion: Questions and Answers

Twitter

Amazon

YouTube

Discussion about this post