Life does not require sentience or any kind of consciousness, and rights have nothing to do with mere sentience. There is no excuse for abrogating the rights of the mother for a potential human being. The requirement that a human be born as a necessity of having rights is not a poor one. The limited rights formulated for infants and children are another matter and are no excuse for abrogating the rights of a woman who does not want to bear a child. More at http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

I wish I had read this before commenting on another post, because I used the same "self-sustaining and self-generated action" line myself. That definition starts at the point of sentience, but is not complete until adulthood. It is an objective definition. The choice of point of birth for assignment of the right to not be terminated is a poor one, because infants lack the ability to conduct enough self-sustaining and self-generated actions almost as much as when they were in the womb.

It was part of the answer to your statement that "Morality is most often defined by the extremes." It is not, and the courts are not an example.

Ayn Rand described life as "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action". That is not non-objective and does not contradict science. Your problem is that morality and rights are not based on being alive alone, and do not properly pertain to fetuses. It has nothing to do with not being alive, which no one claims. Biological definitions of life are not relevant to that

You stated, "If I were to create my own definitions, you and everyone else would immediately say, 'Who the heck are you to define terms in a way that is different from everyone else?" That is not true, and you cannot in logic "stand by" a misrepresentation of what you imagine someone else would say. Definitions are true or false in accordance with whether or not they correctly specify a concept in terms of essentials, not whether or not they are "different from everyone else".

The clown who voted this down has his own problems.

Agreed. Far beyond.

I was not the person to downvote you on this one, but I stand by my point. When Ayn Rand makes definitions that are objective, you choose to agree with her because of the objectivity of the definition. However, the definition of life in most dictionaries and in all biology textbooks has certain characteristics that are easily identified (such as the ability to adapt to its environment) and hence objective. You have chosen to reject that definition.

Valid definitions are objective, not what "everyone else says". See the chapter on definitions in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. When some provides a true definition I do not say "Who the heck are you to define terms in a way that is different from everyone else?"

People can only be manipulated into guilt by reference to moral ideas they take seriously. The current frenzy over abortion is based on confused religious morality and a confused idea of what morality is and why. We see people who don't ordinarily take religion seriously in their normal living but because they don't understand the nature and source of a proper morality are easily manipulated into opposing abortion despite the damage to the women they want to control.

You wrote "In our law, fetuses have property rights" and "If you still don't think a fetus is a person, I ask you to pick up a high school biology textbook."

Science has not determined that fetuses are human beings with human rights like property rights. You are confusing religious dogma with science.

Courts are not supposed to legislate, but they do. Interpreting applicable law is not legislating, but they have gone far beyond that.

Scott,

With all due respect your statement "Nor does it prove one's level of knowledge and/or understanding of any particular subject." I completely disagree. In the "About section" of this forum, an Objectivist who DOES have understanding should be self-motivated to action.
No Free Lunch
Value for Value
All core concepts to one who understands and has knowledge. Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about
"Producers are members of the Galt's Gulch community who have read Atlas Shrugged, are advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas, and understand that there is no free lunch. They understand that running this site costs money. They understand that the value they get from this site deserves a fair value-for-value exchange."
Value for value. I joined the Gulch because I was motivated by Ayn Rand after I read Atlas Shrugged, then The Fountainhead, then a few of her other lesser known works.
To self-identify as an Objectivist, one MUST view things from a value for value proposition.
Being flagged "Producer" while certainly not required to participate, indicates a specific level of "value-for-value" acknowledgement.
One who self identifies as an Objectivist is forced by these principals to ask themselves do I find "value" here? If I do then I should be motivated to as this site points out in its "About" section, know "there is no free lunch."
I joined this site, and remained a guest for a view months to determine if I found "value." I was self-motivated as were so many others who found value.
I did find a great deal of value so I made the choice being motivated by Objectivist principals knowledge of those principals, and the wisdom to ACT on those principals, I acted on that value and subscribe.
Some who contend they are the epitome of Objectivism, and do not find value, should not be taking harsh tones with others on this site who DO find value here and express that value with a subscription, thus being flagged "producer" whereby I have taken the product of my labor, to pay for the product of another person's labor, i.e. this forum.
To be honest, the value I paid voluntarily is less than smoker pay to suck down carcinogens on a regular basis, making this forum a significant value vs. the amount requested.
To quote directly from Ayn Rand.
The Virtue of Selfishness
"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it."
I guess one must ask what currency. Well since money is the tool by which men freely trade with one another and establish value, and as the "About" section points out there is NO free lunch. A person who holds Objectivism dear would most certainly ACT by providing that value, currency in the form of a subscription, else that person must not hold those values as dearly as proclaimed from the roof-top.

Being a Galt's Gulch Online Producer does not make one an Objectivist or a "Producer" in real life woodlema. Nor does it prove one's level of knowledge and/or understanding of any particular subject.

Not being a Galt's Gulch Online Producer also does not make one a moocher or a looter.

Galt's Gulch Online Producers are however expected to hold themselves to a higher standard and not berate, belittle, or attempt to pressure others into becoming Gulch Producers. This would actually be considered conduct unbecoming a Gulch Producer.

Let's raise the bar.

Thanks,
Scott

I was thinking more about this. I think in order to answer this properly you must, and I mean MUST in your own mind define what is life, and when does it begin.

I was doing some additional research on what SCIENCE determines life to be and when it begins and while there are varying differences there are also some extremely consistent identifiers.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lif...
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hamme...
According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:

1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on this definition, life begins at conception.

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/...
1

a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body

b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings

c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction

"C" a fertilized fetus meets this requirement the second the cells divide.

http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/s...
Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.


Every scientific journal that defines "life" indicates that the second the egg and sperm come together and divide, they possess DNA and a complex mechanism which separates it from "protoplasm" which is specifically defined as:

However...Protoplasm itself within its own definition uses "LIFE".

Oxford Dictionary:
The colourless material comprising the living part of a cell, including the cytoplasm, nucleus, and other organelles.

So going back to Ayn Rand saying a protoplasm has no rights indicates that life has no rights.

So in the end I guess the discussion will go on for eternity and will be completely based on each persons specific set of morals, beliefs, and convictions.

+1. That works for all of us!

Most often the consequence is having to eat a slice of humble pie.

We do know what Ayn Rand said because she said it herself. Your guess that she would oppose abortion is wrong and so is your assertion that she opposed it only after 3 months. Please read what she wrote about it, including her explanation of why, which in turn depends on her explanation of the origin and nature of human rights.

You did not address what he wrote. You ignore the concept of rights and go off on tangents about a "definition of life", which he did not mention and which is not relevant to the subject. And neither is anyone's "skill as a tissue engineer".

Hmmm.

Methinks one protests too quickly with respect to consequences. How many of the misdecisions of today are rectified by technology, yet are not rejected because they do not challenge religious "norms"?

Car repair, cardiac health, typos (retype the page, use white out, print over)...but somehow, this decision cannot be overcome by technology...why?

I foresee a circular argument coming

That is not true. We do things all the time with numerous "potential consequences" -- and with the ability to avoid or change them, especially when they are sufficiently delayed in time. Your assertion that "The logical conclusion is to not mate in the first place if one does not want a pregnancy" is morally repugnant and decidedly not logical.

The religionists are already turning it into legislation. Duties based on teleological theories and arrogant demands to "live with the consequences" always do. (Look at Scott Walker in Wisconsin and others already imposing bans past the first few weeks in a militant attempt to roll back Roe v. Wade.) The repeated history you refer to is no accident. Political philosophy rests on ethics, epistemology, and metaphysics, and intrinsicist ethics leads to statism by those who take it seriously.

In proper context, if one is not prepared for all of the potential consequences of one's actions, then one should not engage in those actions.

You wrote, in your own words, "The logical conclusion is to not mate in the first place if one does not want a pregnancy."

With due disrespect, that is not my position. Please do not put words in my mouth. I said that ONE purpose of sex is procreation, and it is. Human pleasure is certainly another valid purpose for sex.

Some who have a conflict over abortion have been manipulated into guilt. The psychological damage comes from violating one's own moral code, if one believes he/she has violated it. In your case, you would feel no guilt because you have not violated your own code.

Of course not. Laws are found in statutes and case law, not biology books. Scientific fact is found in biology books. Hope that clears up your confusion.