On all of this, we agree. It reminds me of the famous part of the Indiana Jones movie involving the search for the grail when Sean Connery playing Jones' father says, "You left just when you were becoming interesting."

ok. I am really tired. I have worked my ass off in this blog. If I say I'm tired, I AM TIRED

I did not hide things. Euda chose to hide our comment. He did not really want to. Dale and I are two people. we write books together. You and I have been talking for a year. You KNOW me.

As for the definition of personhood or sentience, and assignment of rights, I really don't think that I am in disagreement with the others that I have been arguing with on this site.

Far more so than a human embryo, what I deal with is "potential life", and yet it has value if cultivated properly. I am not saying that what I deal with should have "rights", but I am arguing for the value of what I do.

Ok I know what you are driving at. You want me personally to state what my personal view is.

I did not state my personal view as in the discussion it was not relevant.

I was simply pointing out 2 particular Government statues (there are a lot more) that assign legal protection to the eggs of animals.

Perhaps I assumed you knew that these statutes were driven by the left and those conservationists and activists that also support planned parenthood.

My point is not as complicated as you are making it, and perhaps I touched a nerve in pointing this inconsistency out.

If the left/liberal/conservationist/activist, through legal statute define the unhatched egg of a bird worthy of protection, and does not afford the human the same thing THAT is inconsistent and not A=A.

That is all I was pointing out.

Again you cannot have it both ways.

I "I", was not defining when life begins nor was I in any way indicating any such thing other than via the logic of the Federal Statute that is in existence and is FACT, (the legal statute) that was argued by liberal conservationist activists.

Jim, I've found a site that offers a very rational approach to this question that makes a lot of sense to me and addresses the question from several standpoints.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_doe...

When does life begin? is a question that seems simple and straightforward, but really isn't.
Defining life to begin with is hardly straightforward, but for the purposes of this question we mean "human life," and more specifically we mean the life of an individual human being, as "life" in general only began once, and has existed continuously since the dawn of the first cellular organisms billions of years ago. Hence, this is more a question of "when does personhood begin?" for a particular person, rather than any definition regarding abiogenesis. This question is crucial to a number of complex ethical debates regarding abortion, premature births and, at the other end of the spectrum, brain-dead patients. It is almost as complicated as defining life itself. Ultimately, it is not a question of science, but of morality, politics, and ethics.

Ecology/Technology

Further past this point, a baby is born at the natural time. However, there is still one hurdle to jump in defining unique "life" and that is the nature of sentience, or self-awareness. Experiments on very young children show that they are certainly not as self-aware as adult humans - indeed in some cases other primates can beat them on the tests administered. The fact is that all humans are born somewhat prematurely, while the young of other animals can drop out of the womb or hatch from an egg and be up and running in minutes, human infants need far longer care. This is due to a developed human cranium being too large to be held by the mother and be given birth to safely, this problem essentially forces the mother to give birth at nine months when in an ideal universe it should be longer. So defining life based on self awareness, you're not really alive until sometime after your first birthday.


The Conclusion is that the question may well be meaningless, but can only be answered subjectively on the individual level and one definition can't be forced on anyone from a legal or moral point.

j, just for discussion sake, I just found a definition on Rationalwiki that's interesting:

Metabolism: "From a metabolic perspective, i.e., cellular activity such as respiration, life is fairly easy to define. A cell is either functioning or it isn't (ignoring "dormant" cells and exotic organised chemical processes for now). This has profound consequences for the definition of "life" because taking this view there is, in a very real sense, no one point when life can be said to begin. Both the sperm cells and the egg cells are alive in the same sense as any other single or multicellular organism. Indeed, cellular life - and the metabolic processes performed by this - can continue to occur long after an organism can said to be dead. It's said that fresh (uncooked) sausages contain enough live cells on order to easily clone the pig it came from. Hence, from this cellular metabolic point of view, life begins when the gametes are formed from loose chemicals and ends when every cell in the body has ceased to be active."

"Demonstrate the fetus is a human in any manner"
Suppose the fetus were a human life. Then we'd have a tough problem. How much sacrifice could we demand of mothers to protect that life? Could we deman expecting mothers take a break for high-risk jobs and activites. If a doctor says they should be on bed-rest, could we use force to make sure she complies?

I actually do think a fetus has rights, but I don't see how we can put its rights ahead of the mother's. I hope one day there is technology to extract an unwanted fetus and incubate it with no harm to the mother or fetus.

Yes, it's certainly 'Clear enough', at least for this discussion. In a way, Hobbes may have something right about man on an instinctual level. And i think that's where AR showed her genius, by looking at man in combination with his mind, and with his actions then determined through logical reasoning and rational thought, rather than on Hobbes instinctual level.

I think that an Objectivist decision to act considers consequences of that act, based again on that rational thought and logical reasoning. And again on that level, we disagree on abortion being a disregard for life. I still see it as a decision based on the regard of a life that is self owned and realized compared to a potential life, with life in my mind as personhood, not just that of biology, thermodynamics, or any other branch of study.

Since it is teach the dino time and this is hid, I've been curious about your connection to D K Halling--and how come you get to hide things?
After college, I started out as a nosy reporter and the sensitive snout of an allosaur is very similar to the T-Rex, who came later.
I can stand a no comment if you like. Me be a big dino.

wood, your continued efforts at sophistry and rhetoric in an attempt to get around the issue of A=A in the case of your opinions and beliefs on abortion are ludicrous, at least.

You begin your comment above: "Ok if A=A then lt's (sic) look at this from a current secular perspective only."

Then: "First legally and according to statute "What is Life and When does it begin?""

But you fail to list any 'secular" or any 'legal' reference. In Wikipedia, which is certainly secular (meaning non-religious), examining several viewpoints from science, it's first determined that what's really being asked is 'What is Personhood' and 'When Does It Begin', because life has too many definitions and attempts to define, and can't be consolidated down to one answer. The Conclusion is:

"Further past this point, a baby is born at the natural time. However, there is still one hurdle to jump in defining unique "life" and that is the nature of sentience, or self-awareness. Experiments on very young children show that they are certainly not as self-aware as adult humans - indeed in some cases other primates can beat them on the tests administered. The fact is that all humans are born somewhat prematurely, while the young of other animals can drop out of the womb or hatch from an egg and be up and running in minutes, human infants need far longer care. This is due to a developed human cranium being too large to be held by the mother and be given birth to safely, this problem essentially forces the mother to give birth at nine months when in an ideal universe it should be longer. So defining life based on self awareness, you're not really alive until sometime after your first birthday."

And in Conclusion: When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn't have an answer for us, and that "when does life begin?" is, in fact, a meaningless question.
Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises that:
"The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science."
Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities - subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly."

Then you try to equate human life to the embryonic, in the egg phase of an eagle and even amphibians, attempting to take the examples of legal protection of animals threatened at the extinction level, and compare that to a human life. Then you go on to attempt comparisons of the protections afforded the eagle egg (by neglecting to also include that the protection is also afforded to the nest or parts of the nest of the eagle as well as other parts). It seems that your argument should be directed at the uterus since that's the most equivalent to the egg shell of a bird or amphibian and the nest since it's purpose and design is to hold the egg, the embryo, and the baby chick until it reaches eagle-hood.

Not only is your argument fallacious, but your attempt to dissemble is pretty easily seen through. And that's only an analysis of your first and second sentences. I only ask that you be honest with us, nothing more.

dino-I am a girl. sigh

Those "humanities courses" are based on some kind of philosophy. ;)

It's not a question of whether philosophy can do without science. A rational philosophy lays the foundation for rational (sadly redundant) science and is its most tenacious defender.

Now you note that; almost never in discussion.

Then you really do not under Obj.ism.
Opinions are individual judgments not based on facts. Value judgments can most certainly be based on facts and objective philosophical principles.

I may value a specific movie subjectively or objectively, the latter based on phil. principles.

Many scientists agree that their "facts" need to conform to reality and reason as defined in philosophy. Other details within their fields have nothing to do with phil.

It may be irrelevant to your part of this thread regarding the abortion question, but the title of this thread also included Planned Parenthood.
As the driver for this thread was the cheapening of life via the inexpensive sale of embryos (although unstated, ultimately to R & D types in tissue engineering), my point is relevant to a different part of the thread than yours. My question will among the bigger ethical debates over the next generation.

I don't want to chose for anyone.
I want to First Amendment voice my opinion is all.
Libertarians do not boss people around.
Correctly-thinking Christians don't want to do that either.
Prison inmates used to call me boss but that was just a job,
Oh, another thing, I thought YOU were a guy who called himself a skank up until now.
Why not? I've seen the b-word directed at guys.

As someone who nearly went the State Science Institute route before reading AR, I certainly agree that philosophy is critically important, but I don't think I can be convinced that either one is superior to the other. The reason why engineering schools require some humanities courses is to prevent students from going to "the dark side" (as discussed in another thread over the last day or two). On the other hand, philosophy without science is bereft of its tie to reality. Both science and philosophy are necessary.

Reading your email has brought this subject back into the top ranks of what I am thinking. I don't know if the topic is 'ripe' yet to start a thread on, but I feel that it is getting near.

Jan

I was taught as a child to address adults with Mr., Mrs., Ms., Dr., etc. as a sign of respect. I apologize to any of those offended by me referring to her as Ms. Rand. Cultural norms have been turned almost 180 degrees in my lifetime. I have been known to unknowingly offend people. I suppose this is one such time.

Jim, philosophy always trumps science. ;) Without, you get the State Science Institute and worse.

This is a case where premises have to be carefully separated and analyzed. It may be an 'elephant' even though someone may have the tail and another the trunk.

I think you have hit on the main point of contention, Zenphamy. AR's definition of life is suitable for sentient life and for the basis of defining the rights (or more precisely, the lack thereof) of unborn life. However, Ms. Rand's definition of life is inconsistent with the definition of life that biologists generally accept. Consequently, when the new field of tissue engineering is literally creating living tissues for subsequent implantation, Ms. Rand's definition of life is narrow enough that it handles situations that existed during her lifetime self-consistently, but really is too narrowly defined to handle the emerging field of tissue engineering. As this is my field, I have spent considerable effort pondering what constitutes a self-consistent approach to life. Tdechaine and I have agreed to disagree on whether philosophy trumps science.

On this we will have to disagree. Philosophy can never be as objective as science, because philosophy involves value assignments (a form of opinion) moreso than science.

Thoughtful observation, and one that illustrates my point that the issue is not binary simplicity. Choosing whether or not to end a developing human life should depend not just on a calendar, but the quality of that potential life. There are facts that weigh on that decision, including inherited genetic disorders, that make the decision to end the life a logical solution. If the choice to terminate a life is a result of nothing more than a whim or inconvenience, our whole moral persona comes into question.

The difference between Objectivism and Hobbes is that Hobbes' view was that man was naturally selfish and amoral, while the Objectivist reasons that man makes the best use of his energies by doing what's best for himself, and the result is generally positive. Both philosophies are built around a focus on self, rather than an altruistic concern for others. Hobbes, however, views this self-absorption as a result of survival instincts, and not healthy for society. Hobbes' solution is to have the selfish masses led by a natural leader who can provide moral guidance (see "Leviathan"). The Objectivist believes that sensible, thoughtful actions that benefit oneself are not destructive, and provide value to society without symbolic sacrifice "for the greater good". Clear enough?

That being said, the relation between action and consequence can't be disregarded, or our actions do in fact become amoral, as Hobbes predicted. This has nothing to do with spiritual or natural forces, but with humans as social creatures. A disregard for life, demonstrated by abortion, is destructive in how it affects our actions in general.