The Ayn Rand Institute’s Disgraceful Misrepresentation of Ayn Rand on Abortion
Accurate representations of a philosophy are imperative if that philosophy is to survive. Securing a solid foundation on philosophic fundamentals is a necessary and vital task demanded by any intellectual spreading a particular philosophy. Without this foundation, applying this philosophy to crucial, contemporary issues that demand a philosophic answer will lead to distortions among those who disseminate these views, confusion among those introduced to these new ideas, and, ultimately, corruption of the movement entirely. This is what is at stake with the Ayn Rand Institute’s recent and much appraised book “Why the Right to Abortion is Sacrosanct”. In it, Ben Bayer asserts that Ayn Rand sanctioned abortion up to the moment of birth. This disastrous conclusion violates the basis of rights: life as the standard of value appropriate to a human being. A grievous mistake of this kind cannot be met without challenge.
To begin, why do human beings need rights in the first place? For human beings to survive, they must be able to plan their lives and deal with one another cooperatively. This principle includes the right to abortion, as without which, parents would be unable to plan pregnancies rationally. Otherwise, people (especially young people) would be risking forsaking their future every time they had sex. Even with contraceptives, there is always a risk of accidental pregnancy. Forcing a woman to bear a fetus to term, prior to the fetus’s biological independence, would be an egregious violation of rights and, in Ayn Rand’s words, would reduce her to a “broodmare”. Instituting laws that violate the reproductive rights of both men and women deprive them of the crucial, life-serving value that is sex. Even so, what facts of reality give rise to the line in which abortion is no longer legitimate? The correct view is viability, the stage in which the fetus becomes a biologically independent entity.
Now why draw the line there, rather than at birth? The reason is because people must respect the generational nature of human beings, otherwise the right to life collapses. Allowing a biologically independent entity, up to the moment of birth (or even a week before birth), to be killed is killing a child, which clearly violates the right to life and grossly evades the generational nature of human beings. We are not zapped into the universe as fully grown, rational adults; everyone starts as babies, and if the right to life is to mean anything, identifying the facts which demonstrate human viability is of utmost importance when drawing the line for abortion. After all, what is the essential difference between a baby born and an unborn child within the womb one week before birth? Nothing essentially. Therefore, the most accurate line to draw for abortion is viability, not at birth.
My view mirrors that of Charles Tew, Objectivist and philosopher, on this issue: “abortion is incontestably legitimate in the first trimester, as Ayn Rand believed, gray toward the end of the second, and should be illegal in the third.” (2:23–2:39) Charles also points out that rights “don’t apply when the metaphysical requirements of one life are at odds with the requirements of another, so even after viability an unborn child can still be killed if the mother’s life is at risk.” (2:41–2:55) By the nature of how human beings develop, unborn children are still dependent on their mother for their survival; laws that force women to bear a child that threatens her life is a legal death-sentence. Recognizing a fetus’s biological independence as well as its metaphysical dependence on the mother are vital to rationally demarcate at which stage of the pregnancy abortion is valid or not. Unfortunately, that is not the view of intellectuals associated at ARI, and worse, they are insisting that Ayn Rand herself believed abortion was legitimate up to the moment of birth. That is how they are promoting Ben Bayer’s book, as a radical approach to the issue of abortion directly sprung from Objectivist principles.
To begin, Ben asserts that since a fetus is not “individuated”, meaning metaphysically separate, recognizing the rights of the fetus prior to birth is invalid. Ben asserts the fetus cannot be an “individual in any relevant sense” because it is not “physically or physiologically individuated from the pregnant woman.” (Why the Right to Abortion is Sacrosanct, pg. 8) (Why the Right to Abortion is Sacrosanct will be referred to as WRAS from now on). Even regarding viability, he states the following:
A viable fetus is no more of an individual than an unviable fetus is. To be “viable” is merely to have another non-actualized potential: it could survive outside the womb (usually only by intensive medical intervention). But only outside the womb does it become actually individuated and acquire the right to life. (WRAS, pg. 9)
Therefore, in Ben’s view, abortions are legitimate up to the moment of birth. He claims that Ayn Rand held this view based on a few brief passages she wrote. The first piece of evidence he cites is a passage from a Q&A section of her talk “The Wreckage of the Consensus” performed in 1967 where she stated the following:
The fact of birth is an absolute — that is, up to that moment, the child is not an independent, living organism. It’s part of the body of the mother. But at birth, a child is an individual, and has the rights inherent in the nature of a human individual. (Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of Her Q&A, pg. 126)
What Ayn Rand is stressing is the metaphysical dependence the fetus has on the mother. At the moment of birth, the fetus is unquestioningly separate and is no longer physiologically attached. Just because Ayn Rand points out this fact, it doesn’t necessarily mean that Ayn Rand held the view that birth was the correct line to draw for abortion. According to Ben, the correct interpretation of this passage is that Ayn Rand believed the moment of birth was when an “individual human being begins”, thus the point in which abortion is no longer legitimate. (WRAS, p. 37). He continues by quoting from a lecture by Ayn Rand titled “Of Living Death”:
An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual 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 sole 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? The Catholic church is responsible for this country’s disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished. (The Voice of Reason, p. 58)
On an initial reading, it would seem that Ayn Rand would sanction abortions during the third trimester, given that she states: “A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born.” However, observe how she indicates the “unborn” as opposed to the “not yet living”. She recognizes the unborn as a living entity, just one that is metaphysically dependent on the mother. As such, in the event of a conflict, such as the mother’s life being at risk due to the pregnancy, the mother absolutely takes precedence over the unborn, viable or not. So, an unbreached recognition of rights begin at birth, which is correct, as there is no question of conflicts between the fetus and the mother. Even so, that doesn’t mean that Ayn Rand would sanction late-term abortions without the mother’s life at risk.
What’s important to note is that Ayn Rand doesn’t have a firm view on late term abortions, as this passage, and all the others Ben cites, do not endorse that view. After all, the purpose of this essay is to respond to a Papal encyclical that demands mankind treat sex as a means to procreation, rather than an end in itself for his own enjoyment. Given the subject and theme of her essay, she wants to stress the facts that protect abortion rights as such, not firm up her view on late term abortions. Ben continues with another passage from “A Last Survey”:
Never mind 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. (A Last Survey — Part 1, pg. 383)
Ben claims to assert that Ayn Rand “would have opposed abortion rights during the late stages of pregnancy” on the basis of this passage would be a “mistaken interpretation”. (WRAS, pg. 40) His reasoning is as follows:
Earlier in the article, Rand has indicated her view that opposition to abortion is a confession of a ‘fundamental philosophical evil in a person’s convictions.’ Her chief evidence for this is that “no one has anything to gain from [the anti-abortion stand] and, therefore, its motive is pure ill will toward mankind.” In noting that one can argue about the later stages of pregnancy, she is qualifying her judgment about people who oppose abortion. In the later stages, it is not as obvious that the fetus has “no life in the human sense of the term,” and their opposition is not necessarily out of ill will. Even still, this does not mean that she thinks their opposition to late-stage abortion is correct. (WRAS, pg. 40)
First off, anyone who asserts viability as the standard for abortion does not commit a “fundamental philosophical evil” like those completely opposed to abortion. Morally, one cannot equivocate between the two. Second, Ayn Rand isn’t simply “qualifying her judgment about people who oppose abortion” in that passage in “The Last Survey”. She is also qualifying her view, briefly, on the legitimate boundaries for abortion. The fact she stresses the “first three months” as essential showcases that she is focusing on protecting women to have sufficient time to even get an abortion, not perfect a refined boundary. She even states that “one [(presumably herself included)] could argue about the later stages of pregnancy” because there are other facts worth considering when drawing a line for abortion.
She didn’t focus on those facts as that would distract from the main purpose of her essay, though she wanted to add this “sideline” to showcase her unfinished view on the exact line to draw for abortion. The fact she didn’t have a firm view on the later stages is what gives rise to her qualified moral judgement of those objecting to late-term abortions to begin with. As Objectivism holds, epistemology hierarchically precedes morality; one cannot hold another person morally accountable for a lack of knowledge. Most importantly, there is evidence to indicate that Ayn Rand, toward the end of her life, adopted viability as the standard for abortion.
In a lecture titled “In the Age of Mediocrity” performed in 1981, Rand stated the following regarding viability:
Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality, and that a fetus may be regarded as a human being only when it is capable of surviving outside of and independent of the mother’s body. (The Age of Mediocrity ,9:25–9:38)
Given the progression of her views starting from her 1967 lecture to this one in 1981, it shows she refined her view on the boundaries for abortion rights over time. She recognized her previous formulations focused primarily on the first three months and other considerations, such as viability, needed to be addressed. After years of thinking over the issue (and after seeing Roe v. Wade passed), she publicly and explicitly endorsed viability as the standard for abortion rights. Even so, there is one last piece of evidence to discuss regarding Ayn Rand’s view on late-term abortions.
Ben elaborates on a discrepancy between her formulation regarding viability in “In the Age of Mediocrity” and her formulation in the final printed version published in “The Objectivist Forum” in June 1981:
In the printed version of her lecture “The Age of Mediocrity,” she writes: “Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality — and that a human being’s life begins at birth.” (Objectivist Forum 2 (June 1981): 3). Some readers may notice a discrepancy between this statement and her formulation in the original talk, where she says this instead: “Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality, and that a fetus may be regarded as a human being only when it is capable of surviving outside of and independent of the mother’s body.” The editor of The Objectivist Forum, Harry Binswanger, recounts the story of how Rand made the change: I asked her, “Don’t you think that there is a right to abort in the eighth or ninth month of pregnancy?” because the way one sentence was worded, it sounded like there might not be a right to abort in the eighth or ninth month when the fetus could live outside the womb. She said, “It’s fully formed then,” which is true; it can live outside. I said, “Yes, but isn’t your point here that there’s a crucial difference between the potential and the actual? It hasn’t lived yet.” And she said, “Yes, but it would be wrong to kill it.” I argued, ‘Well, are you saying it’s morally wrong but within the woman’s rights?’ So we discussed these kind of issues for a minute or two. Then she reached for the pen and decisively and dramatically scratched out the previous phrase, and wrote, in one stroke, this unambiguous statement: “a human being’s life begins at birth.’” (Scott McConnell, 100 Voices: An Oral History of Ayn Rand (New York: New American Library, 2010), 597.) (WRAS, p. 53–54)
Once again, Ayn Rand wants to stress that the fetus is no longer metaphysically dependent upon the mother at birth. However, the fact that she even changed her formulation so quickly indicates that she doesn’t have a firm view on late-term abortions, as also evidenced by her statements in “The Last Survey”. Just because she crossed out these lines, doesn’t mean one can validly interpret that Ayn Rand would have sanctioned a capricious woman’s late-term abortion if her life wasn’t at risk. And that is precisely what is at stake with the rationale asserted by Ben Bayer, all in the name of disseminating Objectivism. (Moreover, I think it’s advisable for the Ayn Rand Institute to find those exact pages and publish them given the radical departure between her public statements on this issue and what was changed in the final draft after a private conversation.) Along with misrepresenting Ayn Rand, Ben Bayer’s method of identifying boundaries for rights is problematic.
Drawing boundaries based on one’s concepts, rather than interpreting facts through a proper philosophy, is how he determines the line for abortion. Ben states: “But only outside the womb does [the fetus] become actually individuated and acquire the right to life.” (WRAS, pg.9) As stated previously, what is essentially different from a fetus a week before birth than right after? The concept “individuated” utilized here ignores facts that a rational person would consider when identifying a reasonable range permitting abortion. What’s worse, is this revealing passage regarding how Ben thinks about drawing boundaries for rights:
No amount of investigation of embryology or human genetics will show us that some being has rights. Rights aren’t any kind of observable attribute to begin with, and so they are not the sort of thing that can be discovered by the special sciences. (WRAS, pg. 26)
Yes, one must apply the correct philosophy to demarcate correct boundaries where rights begin and end. However, an examination of surrounding facts absolutely give rise to those boundaries. No one can deduce boundaries regarding rights; an interpretation of the data with the correct philosophy is necessary. Philosophy tells us that man is a rational being that must have his rights protected if he is to survive and abortion is an application of that principle. Given the generational nature of human beings, a line must be drawn to demarcate boundaries of the rights of the unborn verses the woman. That’s all philosophy has to bear.
The “special sciences”, like “embryology or human genetics”, would indicate where to refine the boundaries for biological independence according to a woman’s naturally occurring physiology and embryology. That’s absolutely crucial in this discussion, and Ben’s dismissal of these sciences applied to the issue of abortion confesses a deeper issue with his whole approach: he is deducing the boundaries of rights on the basis of concepts rather than by observation. That is the height of rationalism and, to see this view being disseminated as Ayn Rand’s, is disastrous.
The Ayn Rand Institute has the solemn responsibility to spread Objectivism uncompromisingly and accurately. Distortions on Ayn Rand’s view of rights by esteemed intellectuals representing Ayn Rand must not be tolerated by members of this movement. These actions demand the publication of “Why the Right to Abortion is Sacrosanct”, in its current form, rescinded and a public apology from Onkar Ghate, Elan Journo, Keith Lockitch, Tom Bowden, Rachael Mare, Jesse Hashagen, Elizabeth Judge, Donna Montrezza, and Simon Federman for supporting, in various degrees, a piece of work that misrepresents Ayn Rand’s philosophy. While I came out strongly in this essay, it is my hope that those passionate about Objectivism recognize what is at stake and, either, learn from their mistakes or hold those tasked the awesome responsibility of carrying the torch to the next generation accountable.
