You asked earlier from another FReeper Rand's views on abortion. I wish I was able to post earlier, but work comes first... Anyway, here is one of several of Rand's key remarks about abortion:
"Nevermind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights-- and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a _potential_ with an _actual,_ is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, life-long responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. The concientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua midery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings."
Myself, this is where I have my biggest break with Rand. Her reasons supporting practice of abortion come across, to me, more like excuses and her argument (normally very precise) is surprisingly sloppy.
First of all, a developing baby is not "a piece of protoplasm." At least not for very long. And as for saying a developing baby has "no life in the human sense" flies in the face of the experience of every human being ever born: EVERYONE has had to pass through every stage of fetal development to take breath as an infant. Her argument does everything to dehumanize the developing baby. Very ironic, IMO.
Rand is correct that carrying and caring for a baby is a tremenous undertaking and should never be entered into lightly. I think she is correct that procreation is not a duty. I think she is also correct when she says that having sex with another human being you love is the greatest act two people can share. However, I wish that men and women that engage in casual sex would also remember that. And therefore their private party might be joined-- not by a stranger-- but by a son or daughter they explicitly invited by creating it between themselves.
Individuals are supposed to be responsible for their actions. And a man and a woman should be responsible for their actions when they create a baby. They should practice birth control if they are going to engage in sex and don't want children: whether married or not.
And I don't think that it needs to be the disaster that Rand foretells, either. A mother could carry a baby to term and then give it up for adoption. I know it's not always that easy, but there can be a win-win for the mother that can't support a child willingly allowing to have it adopted by a couple that can.
I'm honestly at a loss to assess a penalty for the individual(s) involved in aborting a fetus. Killing a baby merits a severe sentence, up to capital punishment, depending on the circumstances. And I don't know what the penalties were in place while abortion was illegal. Naturally, it gets worse where rape is involved. For now, I'd make peace with the classic exceptions for rape and incest. I'll have to punt on the rest for now. I'm genuinely conflicted and this is where my argument breaks down.
Basically, the union of human sperm with a human egg can produce no other living organism except an innocent human being (or possibly beings!). Does anyone else think that the case for Objectivism might actually be _stronger_ if it acknowledged that a developing fetus is a _living human being?_
I do however have a question with regard to the exception you put forth. Are you saying that an un born baby resulting from a forced incestuous rape of a minor is some how not an innocent human baby? What are you proposing it is? A demoncrat?
"Does anyone else think that the case for Objectivism might actually be _stronger_ if it acknowledged that a developing fetus is a _living human being?_"
Good post. Thanks. I am in agreement that an embryo is a human being upon conception and abortion is nothing less than murder. I am surprised that Rand took this stance considering the emphasis she had placed on human intellect and consciousness, over the physical efforts of the human. I'm sensing some conflict in this stance of the physical being not being human, yet no considerations to the potential intellect of the developing human mind.
Did Ayn ever have an abortion?