Yes, there is no question that none of it should be government-subsidized. I responded to the false claim that taking responsibility means abortions should be banned.

Don't be so sure. My wife's OB doctor employed a eugenics argument to try to convince us that we should abort our 2nd child.

Methinks you and ewv protest too much.

I think that you think that I am making religious-based arguments. I have not done so in this thread (or any other time in the last month or so at least), and neither has blarman made a religious argument in this thread.

The reason for the argument is that Objectivism has made the assignment of rights at birth based on that life form's ability to generate enough action on its own to sustain itself. An infant clearly cannot, and a fetus cannot either, of course. By that logic, then no rights should be assigned to that life form until MUCH later in life. You act as if I think that rights should be assigned in utero. In utero, at conception, cells exist, but they are "potential life", as ewv is quick to point out. At that point, the life form cannot have any rights. At some point in utero, the life form starts to generate some actions to sustain itself. Certainly by age four or so, humans generate enough actions to sustain themselves, other than earning cash for food, shelter, etc. At that point, it is probably reasonable to assign children some modest rights. In between, there is a gradient in the number of self-generated actions that the entity takes to sustain itself. One can reasonably argue that it is not until birth that a life form should have any rights. ewv stated multiple times that sentience cannot be used as the point for assignment of rights on the basis that it would create a contradiction. That is a reasonable statement, because prior to sentience, the life form is not capable of making conscious decisions to sustain its own life. Thus, one can reasonably conclude that the lower limit must be greater than the point of sentience.

Personally, as an engineer, I am trained to be conservative, and so I error on the side of caution and avoid the potential ethical dilemma by not participating in abortions. Thus I would not personally get involved in an abortion after the age of sentience, whatever that is. However, that says nothing regarding whether I (or blarman or any of the other Christians on this web site) regarding whether we would use force to impose those views on others. I certainly would not, and you have taken far too much offense to what has been a completely rational debate.

Is the choice of one's birth a reasonable time to start assigning rights to the new entity? Probably. It raises the least contradictions, but it certainly is not the only choice for which one can live a non-contradictory life. Living a non-contradictory life is paramount, regardless of what anyone else, including Ayn Rand, says.

Both of you have assigned a religious basis to my decision. I have not. I have rationally made decisions based on what I can live with and what I cannot live with, according to my moral code.

As to philosophercat's point regarding miscarriages, some "potential life" was not meant to be. My wife and I have gone through a couple miscarriages at 4 to 6 months of gestation. It was emotionally hard on my wife, but in the end, it was a "potential life".

We were also told by our OB doctor that we should abort our 2nd daughter because of a high probability that she would have birth defects using the same argument made by eugenicists. She is going to college next week, with no long term effects. The "pressure" exhibited by the "religious right" is far from the only such pressure. I am quite sure that our doctor's recommendation is far from an isolated incident.

Mother nature practices abortion with every still birth or discharged fetus. Its how evolution protects the mother so she can have additional children which might survive. Humans have been getting rid of unwanted pregnancies since the first conquering army left the raped women of the village. Removal of fetuses is natural and without it no species would survive. Of course that doesn't matter if we are god's creation and our purpose on earth is the next life.

The common thread in your list of enemies of freedom is a fear of reason and a desire to get control of government. Those of us who are advocates of individual sovereignty know it can only come when individuals takes pride their individual use of reason and respect and admire that in others. You defund PP because it is not the proper role of government but that comes from a principle of individual rights which are rationally based. Religious people suspend reason because what they believe is sustained only by faith. When the two conflict out come the guns and we see it in this thread. The essence of Objectivism is the concept of objectivity which requires the integration of ones cognitive skills with the hierarchical body of knowledge and one tests the truth or falsity of propositions by how well they are integrated and reducible to observation. Religion requires that be broken and un-integrated. Religion cannot find the boundary and fears the free truth seeking human mind. So I do worry about people who claim to have read and accepted some or all of Ayn Rand and still hold onto god. They cannot tell where the dividing line is and abortion is just one of the places the conflict comes up. The definition of rights is another.

oh, I see it. A person can only take so much and then they shut down. If there was occasional banter and a build up of goodwill between the debaters, one can come back another day. If you think the religionists on the site are the biggest problem, I would suggest you check out the property right eroders. The anti-proper govt promoters. The Christians are not your big worry. Defund PP. Yes, big assault on your freedoms

Hannah Arendt said as a Jew she knew when to flee Germany because "Philosophy had become political." What freedom requires is understanding when the very basis of individual rights are being challenged by people who want to use government for religious purposes. If you cant see the attack on reason, science, and human discourse then he wins. Hannah Arendt also said civilization depends on the ability of people to enter into "political space" as a private discussion between individuals which is only possible if they use reason. So when a religious person uses anti-reason and no one speaks out because they try and keep it light. That's why the "lights" are going out.

Since you have neither stated a position nor defined your terms let me ask you the key question...How do you know God invests the two strands of DNA with a soul at conception?. Can you show the science that supports your position. Can you define sentience such that it applies only to humans and if so at what time in development does it occur? If by sentience you mean thought then thought comes only after language. If you mean sensory awareness then it is possessed by all mammal fetuses during pregnancy. The key to the umbilical cord is it is obvious that the only means of support is the mothers body, blood, and organs. Please take a moment and define your terms then see what science supports your position. As I understand it god is your only hope.

Your reply is confusing. However, I think the premises of your thoughts are best expressed in your last paragraph. You are trying to argue from the position of skepticism and mysticism at the same time. You reject certainty on the one hand, then claim it for an unidentified "proof" on the other.

Assertions of "proof" require evidence within a rational observation of existence. A major premise to be checked is whether one is positing an idea as knowledge which presumes a leap of faith in its 'logic'.

I disagree with your concept of knowledge and how we can acquire it. The human mind has the ability to believe anything is true. It's a characteristic in the nature of our consciousness, and cause for the necessity of using reason to identify and integrate our perceptions.

The false premise in the first paragraph is in presuming to know all about the process of reason and intelligence and consciousness in the first place. The false dichotomy is the presentation of knowledge acquisition as an either/or type of proposition. Why not both? Reason is a process by which information is taken and judged for its utility, observation is the process of obtaining that information in the first place. The argument as it is penned attempts to limit observation unjustifiably, with the result being a limit on reason by virtue of a limitation of observational inputs. I don't accept a limitation on observation. As we would say in computer terms: garbage in, garbage out.

"Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?"

I completely agree with this. My wording in the previous question was to emphasize that there is knowledge, and then there is what we do with it. I was not trying to argue epistemiology. My apologies if my wording was such that it implied a conflict.

"Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism)."

And I agree that this represents another false dichotomy because it denies a third option: that work and effort may also result in knowledge. The arguments as presented attempt to pit science against religion again based on the false presumption in the former paragraph. By removing the artificial confrontation, we also eliminate the perceived necessity for opposition.

"Since man is not omniscient or infallible..."

I hold that this realization is precisely the key. We are all subject to imperfections and mistakes in judgement, etc. It is a common affliction of man that stems mainly from a lack of perfect knowledge. It is precisely when we presume to know something that we get ourselves into trouble - especially when we can not substantiate those premises with proof. On the other hand, we should not simply ignore the proof we have either, nor should we reject the assertions of those who claim to have proof. Independent verification - preferably personal verification - is the best policy, wouldn't you agree?

I'm not going to disagree with what you just wrote, but I have to agree with blarman's observation regarding your quick rejection of any anecdotal evidence, including much that is not religious in nature (ex. your quick rejection of the documentation in the psychology literature regarding psychological effects after abortion), from others that is contrary to yours. A scientist examines all data and subjects it to appropriate testing before accepting that data or rejecting it.

You have not detected religious duties from science and observation. You have no evidence for it. Faith is the opposite of reason. You can believe whatever you want to but this is a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.

Your false personal attacks of "duplicity", "eugenics", "nazism", etc. are inappropriate and do not belong here, just as your repeated proselytizing of religion in antagonism to Ayn Rand's philosophy does not belong here.

If the procedure puts the female at higher risk, then that would be the video that the hysteria mongers release last, for maximum effect. If the procedure doesn't put the female at higher risk or it can't be proven that the procedure doesn't put the female at higher risk, then you won't hear a word about that from either side.

I can agree with the last part, about women taking responsibility after the act, only if they pay for their own services, rather than having them subsidized. The majority of abortions are subsidized, and as usual, those who need the abortions are being shielded from the full effect of their actions. We understand cause and effect, but those who need the abortions ... don't. "No one gets to this place by faking reality in any way whatsoever." - John Galt

So the question you have to ask - and precisely what jbrenner is doing - is are you questioning your premises honestly. That is a rhetorical question: only the individual can answer it and it only matters to the individual.

I base my findings exactly the same way he does - on my observations and experiences. When someone presents a theory which contradicts what I have personally experienced and observed, I have to immediately take that point of view as being on the opposing side of the evidence I have. What I continually see from you is an attempt to discount what I have seen and experienced as if somehow that personal evidence holds no value. To me, that is as anti-scientific and biased as one can get.

You are not at all required to accept what I have seen and experienced. But you are not permitted to claim that what I have experienced and detected with my own senses is somehow subject to your interpretation or philosophical leanings. Anyone with either decency or courtesy would not only engage in civil discourse on the matter to seek the truth, but would also not be duplicitous about simultaneously demanding evidence and then discounting it when it doesn't fit their preconceptions.

The climate hysterics in the name of science fundamentally fail on epistemology as well as ethics.

As far as I know the women were not pressured in any way. We aren't going to find out more from the hysteria mongers behind the PR campaign against abortion.

Rights begin at birth in accordance with nature of human beings. A fetus, embryo, zygote, egg, sperm or cell has no rights. They are not human beings. They have the potential to become a person.

Rights are not based on "utility". This is an Ayn Rand forum.

Relgioun has no business telling anyone they have no choice after sex. The choice to have sex is not the same as a choice to have children. It may or may not be. Procreation is not the only purpose of sex. That is religious dogma. This is an Ayn Rand forum.

Women who have abortions are taking responsibility for the consequences for their action. They have to go out of their way to have an abortion. That is not "trying to undo what can not be undone". It is done all the time and is effective because we understand cause and effect and know what to do to prevent the effect you demand. There are no religious duties. This is an Ayn Rand forum.

It's a shame that we have to qualify what kind of "science" we're talking about because some have tried to corrupt and steal the concept to describe their piss poor thinking or lies.

I would add that science not only has a metaphysics and epistemology but also an Ethics. If you want to see what happens when Science ignores its philosophical basis, one need look no farther than global warming "science."

A quote from Philosophy: Who Needs It explains my point.

"Since man is not omniscient or infallible, you have to discover what you can claim as knowledge and how to prove the validity of your conclusions. Does man acquire knowledge by a process of reason—or by sudden revelation from a supernatural power? Is reason a faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses—or is it fed by innate ideas, implanted in man’s mind before he was born? Is reason competent to perceive reality—or does man possess some other cognitive faculty which is superior to reason? Can man achieve certainty—or is he doomed to perpetual doubt? The extent of your self-confidence—and of your success—will be different, according to which set of answers you accept."


The dichotomy in your last sentence is clarified with this quote from Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

.... Two questions are involved in his every conclusion, conviction, decision, choice or claim: What do I know?—and: How do I know it?

It is the task of epistemology to provide the answer to the “How?”—which then enables the special sciences to provide the answers to the “What?”

In the history of philosophy—with some very rare exceptions—epistemological theories have consisted of attempts to escape one or the other of the two fundamental questions which cannot be escaped. Men have been taught either that knowledge is impossible (skepticism) or that it is available without effort (mysticism). These two positions appear to be antagonists, but are, in fact, two variants on the same theme, two sides of the same fraudulent coin: the attempt to escape the responsibility of rational cognition and the absolutism of reality—the attempt to assert the primacy of consciousness over existence." (bold emphasis added)

Engaging in any 'science' already presumes an epistemological consideration of "what".

agreed. But in the 5th video, there was game changing discussion. Intact "cadavers" were considered to be a high premium. The discussion was how to optimize those kinds of tissue sales. That means changing up the protocol to increase the likelihood of that result. Moving forward. The director in the video said that some doctors performing abortions indeed did research themselves and were already coming up with new procedures to optimize that likelihood. If that isn't delivery I'm not sure how else that would work. I don't know though. Again, the female is not in control of the procedure and why one procedure would happen over another. That incentive is PPs. I would be curious to know if this new procedure puts the female at higher risk. It may not.

Science does not accept arbitrary "premises". Science is not obligated to run around in a frenzy trying to disprove every piece of mystic nonsense presented to it. The rejection of that approach is not "bias".

As explained many times, philosophy -- specifically a rational epistemology -- is fundamental to the basis of scientific knowledge and all other intellectual activity. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts... The role of philosophy in science is not just how we use it.

Blarman is using a fundamentally wrong criteria for the requirements of having rights. "Sentient" means conscious at the perceptual level. Denying a woman's right of abortion is a serious matter.

You don't tell someone who has been falsely smeared as "eugenics", "racial cleansing", "nazis", and "The Black Holocaust" to "lighten up".

How do the hours of conversations show that they were not really discussing what was being discussed?

Most of the abortions were early stages of development and did not "deliver" fully intact "babies". If there were any borderline live deliveries at the opposite extreme that were improper it was not characteristic as implied by the hype. There were no "nine month old babies" as Mark Levin's demagoguery put it.

There is no evidence that they were paid more than currently legal charges for costs or that the women were pushed into abortions for "harvesting".

If there is ever a detailed, objective assessment perhaps it will be found that PP did something technically illegal buried in the whole context, but it isn't anything like the hysteria being promoted by the anti-abortion activists.