Abortion: The Rationale

The reason for most of the debate surrounding the abortion issue is our failure to properly define “human life.” Without a proper, rational definition, no solution is possible. For Ayn Rand resolving the abortion debate required only a firm recognition of the rights of individuals and a few precise definitions:

“An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only an actual human being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet living [or the unborn].

“Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the soul discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?” [AR, 1968]

But Ayn Rand went on to explain that her reasoning addressed only 1st trimester abortions. “One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue [Roe v. Wade] concerns only the first three months.”

There can be no rational argument against Rand’s position on first trimester abortions. As long as the potential life is wholly dependant upon the mother, it as much a part of her body as her heart, or her brain, or her kidneys. If a young woman chooses to give one of her kidneys to a dying, transplant recipient, she’ll be praised for the sacrifice even if the procedure leaves her own body less healthy. Her gift of living tissue will have saved another human’s life. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes. The young woman is free to refuse to donate her organ as well. The fact that her refusal could result in a kidney patients’ death is irrelevant. She will not be charged with a crime. No one would call her choice immoral. The donor’s kidney is mindless, living tissue. It belongs to the donor. She’s free to do with it whatever she wishes [except sell it. Sadly, that’s against the law in the United States].

I think it’s clear that even in America where the government has claimed the right to sample your bodily fluids before you can get a job, current law recognizes the fact that our bodies belong to us.

But what if the living tissue is not mindless? What if it doesn’t require the young woman’s beating heart for its existence?

An unborn baby 25 to 30 weeks into a pregnancy is no longer a bundle of cells or a fetus, wholly dependant upon its mother for life. It’s a baby that can be born, that can live without its mother. The unborn baby does not have rights equal to that of the mother, but once it is viable, capable of living without its mother, it must certainly have at least the right to continue its existence.

The existence of a heartbeat [which occurs only weeks into a pregnancy] is not a proper way to determine whether or not a human being is alive. The heart is a mindless muscle tasked to supply the human brain and the rest of the body with oxygen-rich blood. A human being’s existence is measured by brain activity. Everything that a human being is, is located between his/her ears. Our brains are what distinguish us from the other animals and from each other. If there is a soul, it is our conscious and subconscious mind at work. An unborn baby with a working brain exists. It can feel.

The state does have a responsibility to protect the existence of a viable, thinking, unborn baby.