https://newideal.aynrand.org/individual-rights-and-the-right-to-abortion/
created by DirtyOldPanties on 22/01/2025 at 22:28 UTC
7 upvotes, 12 top-level comments (showing 12)
Comment by AutoModerator at 22/01/2025 at 22:28 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
Welcome to /r/philosophy! **Please read our updated rules and guidelines[1] before commenting**.
1: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
Read/watch/listen the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.
Opinions are not valuable here, arguments are! Comments that solely express musings, opinions, beliefs, or assertions without argument may be removed.
Comments which consist of personal attacks will be removed. Users with a history of such comments may be banned. Slurs, racism, and bigotry are absolutely not permitted.
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines[2], please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail[3] (not via private message or chat).
2: https://reddit.com/r/philosophy/comments/14pn2k9/welcome_to_rphilosophy_check_out_our_rules_and/?
3: https://reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
4: /message/compose/?to=/r/philosophy
Comment by Limp-Guest at 25/01/2025 at 09:35 UTC
26 upvotes, 3 direct replies
I find the piece lacking due to its narrow world-view. It starts with the US Supreme Court, meanders a bit on biology and Christianity and then ends at the US again.
Abortion is practiced outside of the US, just as all those Enlightenment ideas come from across the pond. So why not look there to see what arguments are made, instead of forcing it through the lens of the US historical mess?
In the same manner, we’re working under the assumption that a philosophical argument is necessary. Why, when there’s medical and sociological arguments backed by scientific evidence?
It seems to me that the author falls into a very American trap: American exceptionalism and historicism.
Comment by mxstermarzipan at 25/01/2025 at 08:13 UTC
13 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This essay makes a similar mistake as the Dobbs decision it criticizes. Both make the assumption that the founding fathers and their ideological inspirations (1) were basically right about everything and (2) would have been on their side. I think this is a prevalent issue in American politics with respect to many issues, not just abortion. On one side you always have a conservative argument that the founders had a certain intention and we should stick to that intention, while on the other side you have a liberal argument that the founders simply didn’t grasp the future implications of their otherwise perfect ideals. Neither side ever wants to acknowledge the possibility that the founders were either hypocrites or just plain wrong about certain things.
This essay mentions slavery, for example, arguing that it took time to appreciate that the doctrine of individual rights might imply that slavery should be abolished. This is ahistorical. The founders knew right away that the idea of individual rights had dramatic implications for slavery. A few were therefore opposed to slavery, while others acknowledged that slavery was probably wrong but participated in it anyway, and still others were just outright pro-slavery.
So on one side, you have Chief Justice Tawny’s opinion in Dred Scott arguing that black people having citizenship rights is not part of the nation’s history, not in the constitution, and not what the founders intended, so black people should never be citizens because the founders were Great Men. And on the other side, you have this notion that the founders just didn’t realize that black people were human beings but *totally* would’ve supported abolition if only they knew, because the founders were Great Men living in a Different Time. Both are wrong. The truth is our founding fathers knowingly allowed their fellow man to be enslaved while claiming to love liberty, and we ought to acknowledge how fucked up that was.
The Dobbs decisions is the new Dred Scott decision. Legally it is completely sound, just as the Dred Scott decision was. Abortion rights are not part of the nation’s history and not something the founders intended. There is no right to abortion in the constitution just as there were no rights for black people in the constitution at the time of Dred Scott. But we changed that. It took a war and several constitutional amendments, but we changed the constitution to create the society we wanted to have, founders be damned.
So ultimately I think this essay makes some great points, especially about precisely when a person becomes a “person” with rights, but this essay and the pro-choice movement in general are weighed down by a fruitless effort to make the Constitution a pro-choice document. Locke is not God, the founders are not Jesus and the constitution is not the gospels. We should create the society we think is best regardless of what they would have wanted.
Comment by dudius399 at 23/01/2025 at 04:48 UTC
7 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Well, this is an interesting conversation ...
Comment by [deleted] at 23/01/2025 at 03:09 UTC
5 upvotes, 1 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by Im_Talking at 23/01/2025 at 20:19 UTC
4 upvotes, 2 direct replies
This issue will never be resolved. Some think it is murder, and some think bodily autonomy and consent are the main arguments.
But it will always be determined by the environment. We live in relative peaceful times so these Hatfield vs McCoy issues will raise their heads with the two sides bickering. However if a world war breaks out or a huge natural disaster takes place, the societal morality surrounding abortion will be quite different.
Comment by [deleted] at 23/01/2025 at 02:44 UTC
3 upvotes, 2 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by DestinedFangjiuh at 28/01/2025 at 21:04 UTC
1 upvotes, 0 direct replies
I think before we consider this we should be able to measure the outcome of the DNA what it has what it could become beforehand. I say this mostly because we don't know how someone may turn out and until we do, should we really have a call to say who will have a chance to live?
Comment by Darkhallows27 at 25/01/2025 at 18:19 UTC
1 upvotes, 1 direct replies
Not going to click anything from *AynRand.org* that’s trying to be philosophical
Comment by [deleted] at 23/01/2025 at 01:50 UTC
-9 upvotes, 4 direct replies
[removed]
Comment by L_knight316 at 25/01/2025 at 09:50 UTC
-8 upvotes, 0 direct replies
30 comments yet less than that I can see. Several deleted comments however and given this is one of the main subs of reddit, I can already guess what the only allowed "correct" opinion is.
Comment by burtsdog at 25/01/2025 at 10:11 UTC
-16 upvotes, 0 direct replies
"What about my rights?" - Baby
"The protection of individual rights cannot be extended **before birth**." - Ben Bayer
"Can't you see me kicking to get out? I'm alive. I'm a person already." - Baby
"Not for long." - Ben Bayer