Embryos Do Not Have Individual Rights | New Ideal Podcast
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2024
- For Ayn Rand, individual rights begin at an infant's birth. Ben and Agustina explain this is due to the role rights serve in protecting individual life. Watch the full video here: • The Alabama IVF Ruling...
Subscribe to ARI’s UA-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
How does the cutoff become when it is attached through an umbilical cord? It is essentially in the same state during the newborn stage, for several years even, just less passively cared for by the mother/parents. The birth canal isn't a magical passage of life. I don't understand how "Rand wrote it several times" is meaningful, like some scripture.
A fetus has no rights on its own, just like a pet has no rights. They inherit "some" rights because they have a surrogate, i.e. the mother, or the owner, respectively. The surrogate, because of its willingness to protect and be responsible for the fetus or the pet, protects each through voluntary action. Without this surrogate's willingness, the pet doesn't have an owner, and may not survive due to a variety of externalities associated with not having a caretaker, and the fetus will not survive for similar reasons. This changes after birth because of the presence of the option of adoption. It is quite an unusual choice for a woman to carry a fetus for 9 months, birth it, and then decide she doesn't want to be responsible for it any longer, but it does happen. In this case, the new surrogate is the adoption agency.
@@SlamminGraham pets go feral all the time just fine, and they aren't humans. This makes no sense. I'm just saying the status and role of mothers doesn't change from 8 month old fetus to 1 month old baby, just the care methods and autonomous nature of it. The process that begins at conception doesn't end until death, and there isn't a magical 2nd start at birth.
@user-tm8jt2py3d You are talking past each other. You hold an intrinsicist view of rights while he holds an emergent one.
@Weirdomanification they are not taking as each other there just debating which vew makes more sense
@@SlamminGraham With the exception of conception through rape, a mother is responsible for the unborn fetus inside her body. Sex is a conscious choice with potential consequences.
Equating a fetus to a pet makes no sense because a pet is an animal. They're called *human* rights for a reason.
The dependency argument makes no sense since a born infant is every bit as wont to die without a caretaker, and arguing that dependency suspends one's humanity is a dangerous standard that can be used to dehumanize other groups as well.
I don't see how this argument holds water. If the right life doesn't extend back to inception, then there is no morality objective way to regulate and determine when it begins. A child would not survive left alone for a week. Are you saying you want to be the one that chooses to end that life if it's determined that that life would never achieve happiness?
From this we know that "Objectivists" think that sleeping men have no individual rights
When does the "Right to live" start? At conception, at birth, at when you can live outside the body for a few hours, when? I find this a tricky question and do not say it starts when you can use reason. That would mean that a lot of adult people have no right to live, because they do not use reason at all (proof look at some video's of Charlie Kirk on campus and the emotional reactions students give and reason is a far foreign country to them).
After the 1st trimester seems fair to me.
The following is not gotcha, but a genuine question. From an objectivist view, if the motherr while pregnant uses some substance that causes the fetus to be born impaired in some way, is that violence on the fetus? I would argue yes since the choice of the mother impaired the child's life irreversibly (assuming that cause is reasonably established). If we use this are our proof case, is not then, every decision the mother makes for the joy or pain of the fetus? Can this be logically be extended back to the point of the woman deciding to have sex (which potentially allow fore empregnation) or implanting an empregnated egg into her body? I'm curious to hear the counter arguments to this.
The argument against this is generally that if someone kills an unborn Women who is pregnant that did not want the child or was planing on having an abortion, that person would not be charged with double homicide but if the Women did want to keep the child, the perosn would be charged with double homicide.
Which is a logical fallacy in my mind because the unborn human either has Rights or it doesn't, it cannot change based on the context.
So yeah, if a Women willingly and knowingly does something which harms the unborn human, she would be liable. Women lose custody over things like Fetal Alcohol Syndrome.
No this is not “violence” on the fetus. Violence can only portray to an object with rights. A fetus has none. So this is well within their rights to drink beer etc while pregnant. That IS their right.
HOWEVER. Just because you have the right to do something does not make it moral. To willingly impair your child with heavy alcohol abuse is “irrational” to say the least and is immoral. But that does not mean it is not their right to do.
The main confusion is that “right” instantly means “right”/good. Go figure it’s the same word who wouldn’t think that but this is not correct thinking.
@@LakevusParadice no one has the Right to drink beer... You're conflating privileges with Rights.
@@LakevusParadice I don't understand how you could argue that it is morally wrong to do if done before the fetus has rights. If I understand you, then anything you do that could cause harm once the fetus is embued with rights is morally wrong. Therefore, if you deprive it of ever having rights, wouldn't that be morally wrong?
Perhaps not a gottcha but you are talking about two different things! So you want to put women in jail? Aren’t you a darling. Firstly, I would have drug addicted women sterilised! Sorry but that is the fairest thing for society and the unborn and born. But what you brought up has nothing to do with abortion and you are clearly not objective. Secondly, I am so terribly sick of this entire conversation!!! Do you really think oh holier than thou, this is what is hurting America? Or is it your way of some how making angel points in heaven 😮. This entire subject are the Great Politics of Small Nothings. It’s for YOU to feel good about yourself. Shameful
Rand's argument for why an unborn fetus is not human is that she defines Man as "A conscious animal." Consciousness in her terms means You're capable of percieving the world, then identifying and differentiating its components. A fetus that has not yet done this has no consciousness.
To use another example, a person whose mind has been destroyed, but whose body still functions in a vegetative state has lost the faculty of consciousness, is no longer human and it's acceptable to take their life.
It's the best argument I've heard from anyone in the moral defense of abortion, but for me it's still not enough since killing a human vegetable who was likely to recover their conscious faculty would be murder in my eyes, and a fetus, absent violence or neglect, is very likely to be born and obtain undeniable consciousness.
By this line of reasoning is it acceptable to kill someone in a coma? No. A conscious animal, doesn't mean conscious 24/7, people sleep of course. But rather that a conscious animal is the essence of their being. A person in a vegetable state or coma are not things in a women's uterus. They are fully function entities that have been damaged in some way.
A newborn is just as physically dependent on the mother as he was just a second ago when he was inside the womb, for even a few hours left to his own would certainly kill him, so I ask; shall we also have the right to kill a newborn baby according to your argument? I could even make the case that a newborn baby is even more physically dependent on the mother since a massive new array of chores and worries arise immediately after childbirth whereas when he was inside all the mother had to do was keep herself alive.
What we see here is a lousy attempt (truly, I'm dissapointed) at a rationalization of a very, very pernicious idea. Just get real and say you don't care and don't want the burden of a human life you yourself produced willingly and rationally and with full foresight of the consequences of having intercourse. At least that way you would be consistent.
Exactly. Dependency is not the governing principle when defining personhood. Objectivism is prone to reductionism.
I believe that the argument is that a foetus does not have any rights of its own separate from the mother's until it can live outside the womb. You understand there are many cases where the woman is impregnated against her will. But even that doesn't matter, it's HER body, not yours. You don't have to like it, but her life is not yours to decide upon. You seem to think that women have an abridged form of rights because they can bear children.
I know of at least one Oist woman who once admitted that she believed it was perfectly moral to kill a newborn child if it was discovered after birth that the child had some sort of mental birth defect. So yeah, I think that’s a belief shared by at least a few people.
@@Ron_Robertson So you conflate the rape victims with the ones who have consensual sex well knowing that a baby can be the result of their actions/choices? It is not like there is for instance birth control you can use. Besides if you start the right to live the moment you are born and not before, you can kill a person while the "mother" is still in labor. It is the same insane argument that's been made by some political party. Yes, there is a time for abortion and there can even be a reason for the abortion like life threatening situation for the mother, but where prevails the right to live of the unborn child?
No it's just that they're the Ayn Rand cult so they have to rationalize everything she says. If she didn't support abortions they would probably have been pro life.
I no longer hold the intrinsicist view. Thanks.
I've watched your other longer and more in-depth videos on the abortion debate and I was stuned. The objectivist's argumentation makes so much sense. I truly believe if that was the mainstream argumentation, that wouldn've tipped the scales in favor of the pro-choice side. I've always been pro-choice but the liberals' arguments are just so weak and the conservative's pro-life take the moral high ground. But the objectivist sorts out everything once again, haha. I wish your voice would be listened to more, 'cause it's such incredible arguments and I can't believe I never heard them anywhere else before. Both side need to know about this.
EXCELLENT PODCAST. THANK YOU ARI & ALL. $ DR BAYER IS ALWAYS SMART AND INSIGHTFUL
First ! Love these smaller informative clips.
Further to not having rights, the embryo or fetus definitely do not have rights superior to that of the pregnant woman.
I tried really hard to be a Randist. While she has a lot of good arguments worth keeping, I found her philosophy brought no real meaning to my life and went back to my Christian roots. Her disregard for the humanity or potentiality of a fetus does not make sense to me. I believe that human life is sacred and that it should be preserved as a default. I have seen a newborn child bring unforeseen blessings, but it does take faith to believe that something good is on the other side when you have no way of knowing that it will be so.
maybe embryos so not have rights, but they should... they are separate being from mother ... mother and baby are not one person...
zygot is new life, it is new person and it should have rights...
mother is just carrier ... that zygot is attached to her (not even directly, it is just inside of her) it is not her
A zygotę is attached to the mother, and cannot survive outside the womb. They are not the same as a human being, they are only potential human beings. Just like the famous acorn is not an oak, an egg is not a chicken, etc.
Does objectivism make clear in these cases what rights the father has?
Rights for what? Spending 10 seconds donating some DNA?
He has the right to use reason with her, and attempt to persuade her to do something different. He can say that he doesn't support her having an abortion if he wants. He can get a divorce if they're married. He does not get to force her to have a child against her will, nor does he have the right to force her to terminate it if she doesn't want to.
@@SlamminGraham Also right not to pay or spend his time on the child. Cause that would be slavery i read somewhere in the comments, rights and responsibility go hand in hand in my view else you are just a spoiled brad and use reason to do whatever you like, because hey, it does not make me happy even when it was my choice.
Oddly enough I'm not sure if there's an official Objectivist position, but as a looong-time Objectivist myself (which is why it's odd that I don't know this), my position is that he has only the rights he gets from the mother by permission. The sperm he gave her belongs to her. If she doesn't want to give him permission, then she has no right to expect his support. If he wants to _get_ permission, then he has to _negotiate_ for it. She has no magic "right" to support and he has no magic "right" to "his" child.
EDIT: clearly a healthy relationship already has this worked out mutually, and a marriage contract may well bring legalities into the equation (I never wanted to marry, so again I don't know).
Objectivism has no definition of family. There is no definition for husband, nor wife. They categorize any institution that does not view the individual as a independent entity as illegitimate.
If a woman is no longer a value to a man once she becomes pregnant, he is under no obligation to stay with her.
I also only adhere to the non aggression principle when dealing with humans I find have value. Did I libertarian the right way?
Objectivists are not libertarian. Libertarians don't have a rational understanding of the purpose or need to have government.
No.
@@Ron_Robertson Does your need justify the initiation of aggression against those who who differ in opinion? In other words, is it in my rational self-interest to be aggressed upon by those who see need and purpose in upholding this institution we call a government?
@@maurices5954 Need does not justify initiation of aggression.
@@Ron_Robertson So if your rational understanding for the need of a government does not justify the initiation of aggression against those who differ in opinion (libertarians etc), wouldn't that imply that non-objectivists are under no obligation to be under such a governmental jurisdiction if they concluded to have no need for such an institution?
Your wrong! You say objectivism is the physical things that exist in the universe, independent of perceptions of our minds. The embryo is tangible and exists in space, it is real, and so you have to apply your own rules and principles to the embryo - your philosophy concludes it is living and has unique DNA that proves it is independent. DNA proves the embryo is not the mother or the father, it proves that the embryo is human (it doesn't matter what stage of development just that it exists or it doesnt!). So the embryo is a living individual human by fact, and on US soil our constitution says ALL HUMANS ARE CREATED EQUAL (it is existing thus created at conception), HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY. The fact it is growing is self evident that it wants to live. To say that this is not true would be to say that your philosophy is really a form of skepticism, and/or flawed so badly it is garbage. THINK IT THROUGH
I would love to hear the view consistent on these principles around whether minors (people under the age of majority and consent) are in the same category as embryos.
Perhaps the distinction between liberties and rights can also be sharpened. Does a disabled person, unable to exercise their liberty, not reach the minimum qualification to be given political rights, if rights are a political protection of liberties?
Can they own property if they are unable to also produce enough to sustain their own life, or is that forfeit?
No, they're not. A child is not physically attached to the mother. But, I wonder if you're being serious with this question in the first place. Once born, a child has some rights, not as many as an adult, but the basic right to life is one of them.
@Ron_Robertson political rights are derived from liberties; the requirements for independent, self-sustained living. Ayn Rand would call rights for minors a Floating Concept. You are describing positive rights, that the state has a moral duty toward the non-productive. I'm just trying to be precise. Children's Rights contradicts Ayn Rand's conception of rights
@@justifiably_stupid4998 Political rights, properly recognised, are derived from man's nature. I am describing the difference between the non-existent rights of embryos, qua embryos, in comparison to a human who can live and breathe on their own outside of the womb. Children's rights do not in any way contradict her conception of rights. Having a subset of rights isn't the same as a contradiction. A two-year-old can't reasonably be expected to be able to sign a contract, for instance. That's not a contradiction of the rights of an adult.
@Ron_Robertson Liberty is synonymous with man's nature. That was an unnecessary reframing. Also asserting embryos have "non-existent" rights, or rather - abstractions without identity, furthers my accusation that you are using floating concepts.
Just state that embryos have no rights, and minors have no rights. The only thing we might be able to say is that parents have obligations to fulfill their child's moral claims against them. Perhaps the state has a duty to document a minor's personhood, to prevent others from inflicting identity fraud against minors.
Orphans (minors lacking a guardian) have neither rights nor may make claims upon others. They are no different than adult beggars or invalids, in the eyes of Ayn Rand.
Absolutely 100% correct
Embryos are LIFE
You have a degraded view man if you think an embryo is an example of one.
So are farm animals.
@@Weirdomanification humans are the same value as a farm animal?
An embryo DOES have individual rights by the US constitution, because the embryo has its own DNA - it is unique DNA belonging only to that individual living human organism, it isnt the genetic match of mother or father so its not the parents body so they cannot declare "my body my choice" because it is not the parents body. This DNA sovereign embryo/human organism is actively growing is undeniable proof that this unique independent individual with its own DNA wants to live, it is choosing life, and under the constitution ALL LIFE IS CONSIDERED EQUAL AND EVERY HUMAN HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE AND LIBERTY!! To abort an baby on American grounds is UNETHICAL, UNCONSTITUTIONAL and MURDER
So why was eugenics morally wrong then?
If the goal was to create a better human, from conception, using genetically superior hosts, free from disease or mental illness, why is that wrong?
If the pursuit of Human Life is the goal of ethics then wouldn't creating the best human possible be moral?
Why not just end every single embryo which doesn't have a chance to Live a comfortable, pampered life?
Why not just prevent the undesirables from procreating altogether?
If an embryo can interfere with a Woman's Life, why would she have sex if she is unwilling or incapable of being a Mother.
Why is abortion accepted as a means for ignoring responsibility or excusing a lack of responsibility?
So an embryo, a genetically unique human, doesn't have Rights to protect them from death by the force of another?
Gotta love youtube censroship. Why does youtube not have to abide by my 1st Amendment Rights? Why do they have the authority to decide which words are bad or good under any context?
"Human life" doesn't mean human genetics here in this context. That's your biggest flaw with your whole point.
@@HAHAHAHAHA477 what is human life?
@@panzer00 Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action. If an organism fails in that action, it dies; its chemical elements remain, but its life goes out of existence.
In your statement about how human life is the pursuit of ethics. That doesn't mean the goal of ethics is to pursue the "top human genetics", but rather is saying that the goal of ethics is to pursue the things that maintain our existence. To pursue things that maintain our life and make life worth living (which also maintains our life). That we do not pursue life for the sake of values, but rather we pursue values in order to live. And ethics are what help guide us toward those values that maintain our life.
@HAHAHAHAHA477 well, the speaker in the video said that human life is the pursuit of ethics.
My counter to that statement is that if ethics take precedence over morality, then why not just reintroduce eugenics to better the life of future humans. Why is eugenics unethical if it improves the life of humans? Don't end the life of the undesirables but create a superior human genome through eugenics and phase out the inferior parts of us.
Why is that unethical? I know why it is immoral but clearly, morality isn't important to these "scholars" of Ayn Rand. If morality is second to ethics, then Rights don't exist.
“Rights” are a moral concept - the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others - the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context - the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law.” - Ayn Rand
@@panzer00 ethics are the application of morality. I have no idea what you mean by how "ethics takes precedence over morality". That's like claiming engineering takes presents over mathematics. That's a nonsensical statement.
How many children did Ayn Rand have?
I don’t agree with that perspective.
It’s effectively selfishness taken to its logical conclusion
It's horrifying. And on top of it, the argumentation doesn't hold. What about the potentiality of a happy life once conceived?
@@christiank1251or two happy lives once conceived (mother and child)
You need two parents not crack parent passing on broken homes, programmed for decades of desturctivity.
Yes, it is effectively one's own happiness in life taken to it's logical conclusion. How horrible of such people to not make there own lives worst off. Don't they realize that their happiness is something that should be sacrificed? Yet instead, they want to be logically consistent. Damn these people for seeking happiness and being consistent with it.
Why are there so many conservatives on this channel?
Evil
If they don't have individual rights then they should be protected until they do.
A unique human begins at fertilization. From that point forward they deserve human rights. Humans deserve rights at any size.
If you start from a faulty premise, you'll end up with faulty conclusions.
Cancer cells also contain unique human DNA.
Well, "firecrotch", this is a case where size really doesn't matter.
Fetuses have no _individual_ rights because they're not individuals.
Fetuses have no _rights per se_ because rights are a sanction to action in a social context, and action and social context do not apply to fetuses.
And if rights come with responsibilities (which is actually arguable), then they'd have no responsibilities and no way to respect the same rights in other fetuses, and thus wouldn't have rights for that reason as well.
These last two reasons are also why animals don't have rights. Which is a position I'm sure you already agree with.
Anyway, if you're against abortion, then have you offered to adopt any of those unwanted kids you'd force women to bear?