|
|
|
Schieder v. Stolyarov: An Abortion Debate Manfred F. Schieder and G. Stolyarov II A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXV-- August 13, 2004 |
|
MR. MANFRED F. SCHIEDER: Vienna, August 9, 2004 MR. G. STOLYAROV II: Chicago, August 10, 2004 Dear Mr. Schieder: Thank you for your response. I can see that you are an articulate, productive, and sincere Objectivist, and I will endeavor to respond to your letter in a detailed and civil fashion.
On the rape issue:
One of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism in regard to initiation of
retaliatory force is that it is to be initiated only against those
directly responsible for it. The guilty party here is the rapist, not
the fetus, and the law might legitimately grant its consent to terminate
the rapist (as rape is a most abominable crime), yet not an innocent
child, even if the latter's dependence on the mother were a direct outcome
of the rape. On the life endangerment issue: No individual is obliged to sacrifice his/her life to save the life of another. Thus, when it can be medically proved that the life of the mother is in fact substantially endangered by a pregnancy (what constitutes “substantial endangerment” is a matter for medical science to define via conclusions drawn from empirical observation), then an abortion can be undertaken as a last resort. Please note that this is the only situation in which I would advocate legal abortion, and it is not a typical situation. Rather, it is an emergency, occurrences of which sort are addressed by Ayn Rand in the essay, “The Ethics of Emergencies,” in The Virtue of Selfishness. Rand writes that emergencies are exceptions to the rule, and are not the normal state of human existence, or of ethical human relations. To say that some extreme action may be permissible in an emergency is not to extend that permissibility to the realm of normal human existence as addressed by the fundamentals of ethics. So, simply because an abortion might be justified as a last resort in some very unusual circumstances, this does not at all justify the general legalization of abortion, especially given the fact that the majority of abortions occur simply because a woman had undertaken indiscriminate sexual relations (themselves morally condemnable) and does not wish to incur the objective consequences of such acts. On the issue of deformed children: You wrote: “Significantly, your article does not mention anywhere the obvious cases of women expecting dysfunctional babies such as Mongoloids, morons, venereal diseased, Siamese twins…” There is nothing that justifies the deprivation of life from paralyzed, disabled, or abnormal children, or even futuristically certain children. No matter how fysically deficient a human being is (yes, the spelling is deliberate; if, as a tangent, you are interested in the reasoning behind it, please see An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics), that individual’s humanity, i.e. rational capacity, can never be can never be considered forfeit. Even the most severely mentally handicapped individual is still capable of purposeful communication in accordance with his individual reasoning. No matter how unfortunately deprived of normal human fysical and mental resources, the fact of his mind possessing the capacity to reason and the capacity to choose is undeniable. Rights derive from these fundamental human capacities, and are independent of the particular intellectual prowess of a given individual, as this varies greatly even among “healthy” individuals; rather, rights are based on the fact that some intellectual prowess exists in any and all human beings, which is lacked by all non-human entities. Thus, in the realm of rights, whatever reasoning applies to the unborn healthy fetuses must equally apply to the unborn deformed ones. As for your “rights pertain only to an actual being” argument, it is the same argument that my article refutes. This argument, as initially stated by Rand, and repeated many times over by other Objectivist thinkers, rests on the faulty premise that “actual” and “potential” states are the only ones that an entity can have. My article suggests that a third state, “futuristic certainty,” exists, which is fundamentally far more akin to actuality than potentiality. According to my argument futuristically certain fetuses, by the mere fact that they cannot presently use their reason, cannot be deprived of life, just as a sleeping man cannot be deprived of life, simply because he cannot presently use his reason. One of the mistakes many Objectivists tend to make is to fix their evaluation of an entity’s nature on solely the present state of that entity, and thus ignore the inexorable dynamic that affects certain entities and must certainly figure into our analyses of such entities. I address this subject further in The Fundamentals of Stolyarovian Continuum Theory: the pro-abortion Objectivist implies that fetuses and children exist on a static continuum, while they in fact exist on a dynamic futuristic certainty continuum. Even if one were to embrace the potential-actual dichotomy, drawing the line between beings “eligible for abortion” and beings not so “eligible” at birth is quite arbitrary. Fetuses display immense fysical activity in the womb in the immediate months prior to birth, and there is no reason to assume that they do not already have the rudiments of a rational capacity and volitional consciousness. It is, rather, far more absurd to assume that a fetus emerges from the womb and then—Abracadabra!—he is able to choose and think. Rather, the acquisition of the capacity for choice and thought is a gradual process, and it is impossible to draw the line anywhere except where such a process has its first beginnings, i.e., at conception, provided that the fetus is sustained in an environment conducive to its further development, as the womb naturally is. On the other hand, the acknowledgment of futuristic certainty offers no such problems; an individual’s unique genetic code is formed at conception. This genetic code guarantees that this individual will be a being of volitional consciousness absent accidents of nature (which are irrelevant to metafysical or filosofical considerations in general) or human intervention. As I state in my article on Continuum Theory, the underlying humanity of such a being is already present, even though the particulars of this humanity will change. Please keep in mind, however, that it is based on underlying characteristics (presence on a futuristic certainty continuum) that rights are afforded, independent of particular characteristics (position on a futuristic certainty continuum). Filosofy must evolve to accommodate corrections to logical errors and deficiencies, which are possible even in the thinking of the greatest of individuals (and no doubt Ayn Rand could be classified as such). Mainstream Objectivist advocacy for abortion is caused by a far more fundamental error, or rather, omission, in the realm of metafysics. Objectivism prior to my writings had not explored the properties of continua or debunked the potential-actual dichotomy, but, hopefully, with new metafysical discoveries in this area, new ethical implications shall be recognized as well. I am G. Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief,
The Rational Argumentator MR. MANFRED F. SCHIEDER: Vienna, August 12, 2004 Dear Mr. Stolyarov: Thank you very much for your fast reply to my e-mail of August 10. In the meantime I have read a series of your articles in your extraordinarily well realized webpage that contains a wealth of most important and fundamental treatments of the themes there presented, though inevitably I have to disagree with some. But this is not part of the present message and I will come back to it later.. I have also read your “Stolyarovian Continuum Theory”, “Obstruction by Periferals” as well as Dr. Parker’s comments and other pages available on the subject. However, here I will refer basically to your reply, above mentioned articles and what Ayn Rand wrote about the right to abortion. 1) I consider Ms. Kanabe and Dr. Parker's standing totally rational, correct and completely in accordance with Rand’s rational deductions on the matter. Should you have a possibility to send them my congratulations please do so… in spite of you and I standing on opposite sides.
2)
In relation with your standpoint of
considering that the abortion issue is “immensely” periferal in Rand’s
thoughts I must correct you. The fact is that Ayn Rand wrote at length
about abortion and made it very clear that it is a main component of the
application of the filosofy of Objectivism. She did not only consider the
matter in “Censorship: Local and Express”. Allow me to list the many
writings by Ayn Rand which specifically refer to pro-abortion in relation
with the fundamentals of Objectivism: 3) Your “Continuum Theory” must be considered totally out of context and truly un-Objectivistic because it proposes to equalize actual with potential, a position totally opposed by Ayn Rand as you can see from above quotation. By By the way, you mention a rational human being as a potential inherent in an embryo: Why stop there? Why not proceed directly to the point when, after having lived its lifespan the human being dies and turns into inert matter? The potential future of the sun is a Red Giant which will engulf and destroy our planetary system. Should we not start to worry about such a future instead of enjoying the warm caress of the sun while lying on a beach?
4)
From your reply:
Here’s another case in point: a virus, shrouded
in its protein carcass, comes along and bores itself into a cell to,
again, cause havoc. The patient (a lady) goes to the doctor and receives a
treatment which helps her immune system to fight the virus. This system,
of course, specifically does not destroy the (sperm)carrier (the protein
carcass)
but saves the lady from many later (potential) problems. I understand that this makes mine as well as the Objectivists position clear and complete. Believe me; neither I nor Objectivists in general are against life. Quite the contrary. However, we are definitively NOT in favor of the life of cave dwellers. Their time has fortunately gone by a long time ago and so it should remain, in spite of “Greenies”, and “Fundamentalists” of all kind (Fundamentalists of what? Of ignorance and poverty?). We are fully against a way of life NOT proper to a rational human being. I will, of course, continue to welcome your messages (even if we do not agree) and take the opportunity of this chance to enclose my rather long writing "Ayn Rand, I and the Universe" which, depending on your decision, you may (or may not) present to the readers of your Webpage. I have also translated this article into German and Spanish. Should any of your readers want it I can send it through your address since I haven't had yet the time to prepare my own Webpage. Still, any copyright rights remain in my possession. I hope you enjoy it! With best regards, I remain, Manfred F. Schieder (Manfred.Schieder@gmx.at) P.S.: I think that it would be convenient to make this exchange of messages available in your Webpage for the benefit of your readers to participate in the debate. MR. G. STOLYAROV II: Chicago, August 13, 2004 Dear Mr. Schieder: I have begun to read your commentary, “Ayn Rand, I, and the Universe,” and find it quite engaging thus far. Thank you for attaching it. I shall give you a more detailed response once I have read it in entirety. Our exchange, along with this, my most recent, response, has been posted on The Rational Argumentator at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/Schieder_v_Stolyarov.html On Ayn Rand’s writings: You have indeed demonstrated that there are more published works by Rand that refer to the abortion issue besides “Censorship: Local and Express.” Let us, however, make the approximate presumption that the sum of Rand’s published statements on abortion totals to about five pages of the Objectivist corpus. If the entirety of Ayn Rand’s published works amounts to 3500 pages (a reasonable estimate), then my disagreement with her stance on abortion would still not preclude my concurrence with 3495/3500 or about 99.86% of her writings. I do not disagree with Rand’s fundamental statements on metafysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics, to which she had devoted the majority of her writings. Any academic, scientific, or business institution would consider a 99.86% correspondence to anything to be a sufficient correspondence. Moreover, it must be recognized that, in a filosofy, some insights carry more weight than others, and the proximity of a given insight to the fundamentals correlates with its adherence being a defining trait of an advocate of that filosofy. As David Kelley wrote in Truth and Toleration, “Suppose an Objectivist philosopher disagrees with Ayn Rand on some particular point. This does not necessarily mean that he rejects her view on all the other principles to which the point in question is logically related. It may well be that he takes the position he does because he regards it as the true implication of those principles.” That said, the difference between pro- and anti-abortionist Objectivists is infinitesimal and depends not on the most fundamental principles, but the evaluation of a single type of concrete entity: the fetus. The essential question to be asked in the abortion debate is, “Is the fetus a human being?” If it is, then it is deserving of the entirety of the rights afforded to human beings, thus rendering abortion illegitimate. If it is not, however, then abortion can be justified. Individuals can hold the same premises concerning the nature of rights, and come to different conclusions about this particular subject matter. On the other hand, persons such as Ms. Kanabe do not recognize the smallness of the abortion debate in the context of the entire Objectivist filosofy, and are willing to abandon even the crucial tenets of selfishness in order to consistently defend Rand’s professed standpoint on abortion. In order to progress filosofically, we must recognize that Rand was neither omniscient nor infallible, and could have made omissions, mistakes, false generalizations, or misclassifications, and likewise could not have explored the entirety of the questions open to filosofy. We now proceed to further arguments of yours: You wrote: “Your “Continuum Theory” must be considered totally out of context and truly un-Objectivistic because it proposes to equalize actual with potential.“ I respond: My entire argument is that there exist other states that an entity can assume that are neither actual nor potential, but belong to another class of states. You have neither addressed nor refuted this argument. Please understand that I do not consider a mere statement to the contrary or appeal to Rand’s authority to be sufficient argument. The actual/potential dichotomy is not integral to Objectivism, and I have not witnessed Rand employing it outside the context of the abortion issue. I also have not seen in Rand’s writings any attempted tie between the actual/potential dichotomy and any of Rand’s insights in metafysics. It seems that this (false) dichotomy has been pulled out of intellectual limbo and applied to justify Rand’s stance on abortion in what I consider an out-of-context and empirically disproved manner. You wrote: By the way, you mention a rational human being as a potential inherent in an embryo: Why stop there? Why not proceed directly to the point when, after having lived its lifespan the human being dies and turns into inert matter? I respond:
I have already addressed this claim in the
original article, when responding to a similar argument presented by a Mr.
Don Watkins III. Here is what I wrote: You wrote: The emergency resulting from the bombing does not involve enmity of the bombed out family against the neighbors but a situation involving both who have now to face the same consequences of getting out alive. I respond: In this particular scenario, the neighbors loathe each other, just as a woman considering an abortion might loathe the prospect of an “unwanted” child. Let us further presume that one of the neighbors’ apartments is entirely buried beneath the rubble, and he is forced to take refuge in the living space owned by the other neighbor. Does the latter have the right to kill the unwilling “intruder”? Moreover, do both the mother and fetus, too, not face the same consequences of getting out of the pregnancy alive, if efforts are taken to ensure that the pregnancy takes its natural course? You wrote: … a bomb (the embryo) has been planted by a terrorist into a building. Being a “slow-goer” it will explode sometime during the coming 9 months but cannot be touched any more after the 5th month (due to corrosion of the fuse) without much damage to the building and its inhabitants. I respond: This is a false comparison because a pregnancy which follows its normal biological progression does not fysically harm the mother’s body. Whatever other “psychological” harms the mother might claim are purely subjective and not necessarily in accord with the facts of external reality; they do not justify the termination of a pregnancy any more than one man’s claim that another man’s manner of speech or type of clothing “psychologically damage” observers justify the coercive ban of such types of speech or clothing, or the termination of the man exhibiting them. Moreover, your virus analogy is similarly inapplicable because a fetus is not an invading organism that violates the structural and functional integrity of the woman’s body. Rather, the woman’s body has built-in functions that facilitate and encourage the development of the fetus at the benefit of both parties and the detriment of none. The woman’s body possesses gametic cells without which the fetus could not have formed in the first place (thus any comparison to an invasion from without is ruled out), and a pregnancy that does not exhibit extraordinary circumstances cannot damage the woman’s health in any way. You wrote: Unwanted children are never welcome, precisely because they are unwanted and, thus, are generally subject to much mistreatment which later on… I respond: First of all, I must point out that “Unwanted children are never welcome, precisely because they are unwanted…” is a tautology that does not give any insight as to the facts of reality regarding the issue. (It only says that a hypothetical subjective aversion of parents toward children could exist; it includes no moral imperative within it.) Having reckless intercourse (unprotected, unmarried, or otherwise lacking foresight concerning the possible consequences) and wishing to neutralize the natural results of such actions is a blanket evasion of the facts of reality, including the fact that individuals who have intercourse in such a manner are likely to become pregnant. Outside of rape (where the rapist is the guilty party), the blame for unwanted pregnancy can be attributed solely to those who had engaged in the acts leading up to it. Whatever negative consequences (material or emotional) they suffer as a result of this act are mere demonstrations that causation exists and follows particular rules, and are quite justifiable. What is not justifiable is to attempt to remedy the situation by harming a third party, such as the fetus. Moreover, it is not the province of anyone but the individual who lives to decide that one’s life is not “worth living.” The child, if he is born, might come to think that the suffering, mistreatment, and abuse will have been worth it if, once he had grown up and been allowed to lead an autonomous existence, he is allowed to make up for it by his own productive actions. To deny an individual the capacity to make such a choice is indeed presumption and, I dare say, coercive presumption. As I have also mentioned in my article, there is no obligation for parents who do not wish to raise the children they conceived to keep them, provided that the children are adopted out to willing caretakers. There are numerous families that would welcome foster children for various reasons, and merely being born an unwanted child is no guarantee that one will be mistreated. You wrote: …the forces of justice must come to deal with them and the parents at the expense of the rest of the population? Here we are now involved very deeply with the propriety rights of others! I respond: The solution to this crisis is simple: abolish taxation and render the government fundable by voluntary contributions. Then, all actions of government with regard to this issue will be explicitly supported by willing donors (who would not have contributed to the government had they not supported its course of action) and thus involve no one’s coercive expropriation. This is an issue that can be addressed in a manner absolutely independent of the outcome of this debate. The fact is: it is possible to enforce anti-abortion laws in a manner that concerns only the enforcer and the pertinent parties. Whether or not this can be done by the government of the status quo does not alter this possibility, and has absolutely no bearing on the issue of whether or not abortion is immoral. You wrote: Since altruism is the obligation to live for somebody else and not for oneself, the anti-abortionists side with the altruists to impose their purposes by force (for there exists no other way to deter a woman from her intention to abort). I respond: There is also no other way except force to prevent a criminal from killing a man whom he has labeled as his victim. Retaliatory force is justified in any context against those who initiate force, and, if the fetus is indeed a human being, the government’s force against the woman who intends to abort is retaliatory. Thus, there is nothing dictatorial or contrary to Objectivism in its use. I would also encourage you to address my statements regarding futuristic certainty and why you think them to be flawed, as well as the passage in my original article regarding children and contractual relationships, and how abortion can be viewed a unilateral violation of a de facto implicit contract. Best wishes on your further thinking, writing, and activism; I eagerly look forward to reading more of your treatise. I am G. Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief,
The Rational Argumentator G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to Enter Stage Right and Sense of Life Objectivists, writer for Objective Medicine, and Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com. Order Mr. Stolyarov's newest science fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus, in eBook form, here. You only pay $10.00, with no shipping and handling fees. Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com. Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store. Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Click here to return to the Issue XXV index. Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here. |
