CovOps
 Location : Ether-Sphere
Job/hobbies : Irrationality Exterminator
Humor : Über Serious
 |  Subject: Response to the article 'Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life'  Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:01 am | |
| The following is my response to the article "Abortion Rights Are Pro-Life" by Leonard Peikoff, viewable at the following address: http://www.aynrand.org/medialink/prolife.html (has been removed since)
Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" features a character named "John Galt." Among the many utterances of John Galt, he points to the law of identity: "A is A." On the issue of abortion, the inconsistency of the A.R.I. becomes apparent. A fetus is neither dog nor cat; it is neither bird nor horse; it is nothing if it is not human. Does it exist? Yes or no? Is it imprinted with every genetic code necessary to develop into a full human? Yes or no? Is the fact of its stage of development a qualifier acting upon its "right to life?" Yes or no?
Mr. Peikoff states: "We must not confuse potentiality with actuality. An embryo is a potential human being. It can, granted the woman's choice, develop into an infant. But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman's body. If we consider what it is rather than what it might become, we must acknowledge that the embryo under three months is something far more primitive than a frog or a fish. To compare it to an infant is ludicrous."
Ludicrous indeed. More ludicrous is to compare an infant to an adult human. After all, an infant is merely at a stage of development that portends the potentiality of humanity [as it is defined by implication in this article] , however, as described in "John Galt's" explanation of the world-view of an infant, it is some significant distance, intellectually, as well as physically, from achieving what he [Peikoff] would term 'humanity.' Does this mean that women have the right to abort, retroactively, their newborn offspring? One would hope not, but in essence, this very lack of morality is that which has led young women to assume that dumping their newborn into trash receptacles, or leaving it in the toilet of a high school ladies restroom at a dance is perfectly natural [moral].
This, of all things I have read and understood of objectivism, as advocated by A.R.I., is the single most inconsistent area of the Institute's intellectual endeavors. Human life is human life. "A is A." Mr. Peikoff would lead a reader to believe that an infant developed instantaneously, at the moment of birth, into a "real human being." This defies all known logic. Rather than simply stating the facts, perhaps what is needed is a further demonstration of them:
Mr Peikoff claims that the embryo "exists as part of the woman's body." True or false? False. It is dependent upon the woman's body, but the real test of it as an integral part of her body is whether it can successfully be removed without harm to her, and implanted in another woman without harm to either the surrogate or the embryo. The answer is "yes" in each instance. Can it, at this stage, exist independent of some woman's body, other than by freezing? No. That does not, however, make it part of a woman's body. A tapeworm will not live but a few minutes outside the digestive tract of the animal it has infested. Would Mr. Peikoff likewise claim that it is therefore a "part" of the animal's body?
Surely, a tapeworm is even more primitive than a three-month-old embryo. Therefore, primitive though an organism may be, by virtue of its genetic uniqueness, or by fact of its stage of development, it is not part of any other, dependent though it may be.
Is Mr. Peikoff's argument then one of dependency? If an organism is dependent, does it not then have a right to life? What of the aforementioned infant? It is totally dependent upon some intervention on its behalf for feeding and other necessary care. It can no more sustain itself, outside the realm of human intervention, than the embryo. Neither can this absurdity be the cause of the lack of a right to life on the part of the embryo.
Mr. Peikoff then says: "If we are to accept the equation of the potential with the actual and call the embryo an "unborn child," we could, with equal logic, call any adult an "undead corpse" and bury him alive or vivisect him for the instruction of medical students."
I would suggest to Mr. Peikoff most strenuously that he "check his premises." A corpse is not equivalent to a living human, developing or not. It is an adulteration of logic, the results of which have been seen, as it is by the same [il]logic that Hitler's Dr. Mengele tortured countless thousands of adult and juvenile "undead corpses." The shockingly inane aspect of Mr.Peikoff's statement is the comparison of a developing life to an absence of life. It is not "equal logic."
Again, the embryo/zygote/fetus/infant is either human, or it is not. It is not potentially human, but is in fact human, entirely, by the laws of nature. If it is not human, what is it? Are we to avoid the law of identity and simply state that it does not exist? It is as though by avoiding identification, Mr. Peikoff seeks to avoid the moral consequence of destroying a human. After all, what is a "human being?" Human means that it shares all the fundamental characteristics of a human, or Homo Sapien. An embryo has the full genetic set of instructions to be exactly that, and nothing less. Being means that it exists. It is, therefore, a "human being." It can be no other.
This conclusion must therefore redirect the debate to the "right to choose," and that which it entails. My understanding of a right is as follows: A right is a natural entitlement that confers no positive obligation upon another.
It should be obvious that no embryo/zygote/fetus can "consent" to anything, but what abortion demands is the death of another human, albeit developing. This is a positive obligation on par with any ranting of the altruistic looters: One should die, or at least forfeit its "right to life," for the convenience of another.
Now consider the "right to choose," "choice" in this context always meaning the abortion of a human life, at some stage of development. The mother is to do the choosing, yet she has already undertaken a choice. Her pregnancy is the consequence of that choice. By allowing abortion, Dr. Peikoff would allow women to ignore reality, breaking the natural link between cause and effect: If you have sex, without regard to contraceptives, during the period immediately before, during, or after ovulation, the likely result is pregnancy. After all, we do know how those little buggers are conceived. Women cannot claim ignorance. They cannot claim, in repetition of Francisco d'Anconia's scornful mocking of the "woman with the earrings:" "I didn't know it."
Additionally, John Galt tells his radio audience that we are never to initiate the use of force. What is the destructive extraction of an embryo from the uterus of its mother? Non-violent protest? Surely, A.R.I. and its principals cannot argue that abortion is non-violent. It is the premeditated destruction of a human life, albeit in a developmental stage.
Let us reconsider this premise given my definition of a 'right.' If we accept my definition, which we must, it being correct, what is the "natural entitlement" of an embryo? It may be defined as being carried to full term, in an unmolested state. Does the embryo place a positive obligation upon another? No. Like any other right, it actually only requires non-interference. Of course, on the preposterously rare occasion of a pregnancy that does indeed threaten the physical well-being of the mother, this then becomes a positive obligation of sorts, perhaps demanding that she lay down her life to deliver. Only in this instance is abortion even possible, morally speaking. Here, she acts in self-defense. Any other instance negates the woman's duty to herself, as well as the "right to life" of her offspring, asserting that she may evade the a known consequence of her action by committing an act of violence.
Is this not the creed of the altruists? That the innocent should forfeit their lives, knowingly or not, by consent, or not, to the whim of the guilty? What is her guilt? She is guilty of trying to separate cause from effect. Isn't abortion the culmination of the pursuit of the undeserved and the impossible: Choice without consequence?
Mr. Peikoff then goes on to say: "Being a parent is a profound responsibility - financial, psychological, moral - across decades. Raising a child demands time, effort, thought and money. It's a full-time job for the first three years, consuming thousands of hours after that - as caretaker, supervisor, educator and mentor. To a woman who does not want it, this is a death sentence." Realizing the "profound responsibility" involved, why does Mr. Peikoff wish to absolve the woman of a responsibility she volunteered, by her actions, to undertake?
"To a woman who does not want it?" If it is a death sentence, in some perverse manner, it is a death sentence self-imposed. This, however, raises another question: Shouldn't the father of this child have the equal ability to choose, not to keep it, but to abort it? Perhaps to this man, it is likewise a "death sentence."
Woe be to our beloved Mr. Peikoff, who has stooped to the level of emotionally inflammatory balderdash. In this one sentence, by the use of the term "death sentence," he has managed to inject anything but logic and objectivity into his argument. By this standard, no man should ever be forced to pay child support. If he doesn't want the "death sentence," he should likewise be able to avoid it by saying "no, I won't pay child support," at the least, and maximally, by saying "abort it."
Of course, this demonstrates the absolute inconsistency, and therefore, the unsupportable nature, of this entire argument. If the man is "condemned," by virtue of the act of sex, to be a parent irrespective of his wishes, and the woman is not, what is the name of the inconsistency with which we have corrupted our philosophy? Moreover, and shockingly, Mr. Peikoff equates the creation of a new human with a death sentence, all through sex(and its natural consequence.) Is this the teaching of Ayn Rand, or Mr. Peikoff?
Again, he writes: "Sentencing a woman to sacrifice..." Again, who imposes the "sentence" that is pregnancy? To read Mr.Peikoff's words, it is as though women routinely walk down the street and "zap!!!," by some holy bolt of lightning, and without her consent or contribution, is struck pregnant [dead].
If this is the closest version of objectivity Mr.Peikoff attains, it is a weak and adulterated relative to Ayn Rand's Objectivism. That means, obviously, it is wrong. She allowed no adulteration that I have discerned, and while I have yet to find any remarks by Ayn Rand on this subject, I would, were they in agreement with those of Mr. Peikoff, refute it just as fully, and cite it as the one failing of her advocacy of Objectivism.
If it is the morality of death you wish to oppose, you must first reject it, fully. The comparison of pregnancy to a death sentence is precisely the sort of emotional hyperbole that should never be uttered by one claiming Objectivism as his philosophy.
Further defiling himself, Mr. Peikoff concludes "Anti-abortionists are not lovers of life - lovers of tissue, maybe. But their stand marks them as haters of real human beings." Choosing to speak only for myself, I am offended at the indolence of this remark. I love "real human beings," having been one since conception. Real equals "exists." Genetics don't lie. What I would be as an infant, give or take only my mother's interference, (or suitable lack thereof,) was decided at the time of that conception. One does not become, in Mr. Peikoff's words, a "real human," at any other date. Would Mr. Peikoff suggest a line of demarcation for his assessment of "real?" At the end of the thirteenth week of pregnancy? Why not the following day? What could be the grand difference? What about the date of birth? Will Mr. Peikoff absurdly contend that what we see born on the moment of the delivery is significantly different than the minute before? Was it endowed by some mystical government document [birth certificate] with its unalienable rights only as it passed out of the birth canal? Or would Mr. Peikoff assign some mystical significance to the power of government in defining the right to life? Is it an absolute, or is it not? Is A really A, or is it not?
This leads me to a question that must be asked of Mr. Peikoff: What is the root of this emotional and inconsistent support of abortion? Would a lack of support make of you a hypocrite? Why? Surely, by your emotional attachment, so apparent in this article, you have a personal reason. Name it. Did you pay for one? Did you urge one? I would hope not, but were it so, I could readily understand, while condemning it, the unwillingness on your part to recognize your objective inconsistency.
Lastly, the following is attached, as information obviously considered essential, to the end of Mr. Peikoff's essay: "Leonard Peikoff, who founded the Ayn Rand Institute, is the foremost authority on Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand."
To be correct, it should state "was the foremost authority on Objectivism [until he typed out this absurd article]." My response will be posted, in full, on my own web site, to which you will receive a hyperlink upon its publication. In short, "Move over, Beethoven.[Mr. Peikoff]" Or, in a more uniquely American phrase, "There's a new sheriff [foremost authority] in town."
"Do you hear me Dr. Robert Stadler [Leonard Peikoff]?" asked "John Galt."
"Who is Mark La Vigne?"
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/1625/peikoff.html |
|
