“I am talking about individual rights” as in, divided? from it’s mother? like the rights of Americans born in the united states? those rights? Obviously that subject doesn’t exist, so I couldn’t change it. Now, talk about Obamacare, that would have been an abortion I would have been “pro” on. It’s primarily a woman’s issue, each individual can decide for herself; we are talking about telling a woman what to do about something going on inside her body; it sounds kind of personal. Informing is fine with me, enforce will just make the situation worse. Being a libertarian and telling a woman what to do with her body doesn’t square. God Bless.

Yeah you really need to spell it out syllogistically for a simple mind like mine. Is
your major premise that upon successful connection of sperm and egg a human life is formed? If so, what is your minor premise?

If an abortion is attempted the next day via the
morning-after pill would that be murder? If so,
to what degree?

Assertion is not proof. Not in a court of law.

Yes, the live human being in the mother's womb can only survive with the help of the mother who is carrying it (to a certain point). This doesn't change the fact that it is a live human being, and that to "abort" it is to murder it. You imply that such an action would be justified since the baby is trespassing in the mother's body, against her will. But is the baby doing so volitionally? Did the baby choose to be conceived in that womb versus another womb? No. The baby is innocent. It has no control or choice in the matter of it being alive in that particular womb -- and therefore to punish it with murder as if it has committed some crime is contemptible.

Did the mother have any control or choice over the baby being conceived in her womb? Most of the time: ABSOLUTELY. But even if she didn't, it still does not change the fact that the baby is innocent of any crimes and therefore does not deserve death.

The fact that babies (live human beings) come into reality in a temporary state of dependence upon the mother is just a metaphysical fact of reality which cannot -- and should not -- be evaded. All human adults (and most human teens) know this, and they know what causes it. They are facts of reality. No human should be put to death for the sin of existing -- which is exactly what abortion is.

Making abortion (killing an innocent human) illegal does not make the mother responsible for caring for any random people, and it does not make her responsible for caring for that specific person (in her womb) for an indefinite period of time. It only means that she must provide the bare-minimum for survival for the innocent human who, by the nature of reality (not by it's own choice) is temporarily dependent upon her, until such time that she can put the child up for adoption.

Again with changing the subject. Who said anything about a theocracy!? Or "letting go and letting God" for that matter!? Haha.

A theocracy is a totalitarian rule of force over all of life, based on theological convictions.
I am talking about individual rights -- which is about as far removed from a theocracy as you could get.

"If it was illegal, it would happen anyway". I suppose there is no need for laws against murder or theft then, either. Are you an anarchist? Or are you just changing the subject repeatedly because you've realized that you might be wrong on this abortion issue?

Read the rest of the sentence: "...it has everything to do with murder".
I shouldn't have to spell it out in a syllogism for you.

Women don't have a special right to murder live humans.
In an abortion, the thing being "aborted" is a live human.
To have an abortion is to murder a live human.
Women do not have the right to have an abortion.

Therefore, to speak of "women's rights to choose" and "reproductive rights" in the context of abortion is just as hideous a changing of the subject as it would be to refer to slavery as "a white man's right to industry".


But again, that was in the original article -- which you still apparently have not read.

TheChristianEgoist,

I read the article and understood it. I believe we have a simple disagreement on what constitutes opinion and what is fact. I simply find myself not as resolute as you on the definition of what it is to be human and at what stage a zygote or embryo acquire the same status as the woman. There have been countless miscarriages and stillborn births. This simple fact demonstrates that there is a difference between potential and actual, or at least casts doubt on the premise that all potential will become actual. Because of this birth certificates are issued at birth not before, and therefore full rights as defined by law must then be adhered to. Your argument that the fetus has human DNA is not sufficient because it may also be found in your fingernails as you posit. No one would argue that you can’t dispose of your nails. Your assertion that it is not the same because it has a different combination is also insufficient in the eyes of many. Other people’s fingernails have different DNA combinations. You claim that stage of development is not a criteria essential to be a full fledged human. That is where the objectivist argument is perhaps the strongest, yet to some it is subjective on both sides.

Tell me The Christian Egoist, in your terms, when is a baby given a soul? Conception? Can you prove this? You will find I am quite receptive to your moral argument if you can answer this question with empirical evidence. Likewise, I am also swayed by an argument that provides evidence of the moment when consciousness or cognitive abilities are evident. This is why I object to late term abortions without reservation. Your conclusion is that objectivist approval hinges upon an evaluation of an individuals humanity. Correct. It is the definition of what it is to be a human that is in question. Your definition is unfortunately not embraced by all. Even if I agree to your definitions, you have no better solution, than to return to the days of back alley abortions... You offer only condemnation of a human failing that laws have not prevented since time immemorial. How will that improve things? I desire an alternative. The morning after pill seems just as objectionable to right to lifers…

Your closing paragraph closes with ad-hominem name calling and condemns “cowardly, evasive, pseudo-intellectuals” on the basis of their subjectivity, yet your criteria seem just as subjective. With what I view as subjectivity on both sides, I personally lean on the side of life, but others see things differently. Though I must say, you make as compelling an argument as I have heard. Having said all of that; I am more in your camp than you know. I appreciate your humanity. Being a man, it is not a problem I have had to face, though I would like to believe that except perhaps to save my own life, were I in such a circumstance, I would choose life. I am just waiting for an argument or development that is indisputable and without subjectivity on either side. I would like to live in a world where abortions are non-existent, where people were responsible, rape and incest did not occur, birth control was 100% effective, all children were born to a mother that wanted and cared for their offspring and child abuse and death did not occur due to unwanted pregnancies. Do you have workable solutions to these problems that have yet to be tried? If so, I am very interested.

Note: I am not an "objectivist" and I do not strictly adhere to objectivist dogma or I would place no limit on abortion except the discretion of the woman. For me, that would be doctrinaire.

"Rationally and in context..." yeah... right... I'll try to remember that... sounds a bit condescending to me... Still, I did enjoy the exchange and reading your perspective. Who is John Galt?

Respectfully,
O.A.

this list enumerates the "desires" of an organism. and that it is aware of them. that is not instinct. Instinct is an automatic, pre-programmed response to do something necessary for life. For instance, a cat will stalk prey even if never taught by other cats to do so. The only comparable thing humans have are automatic reflexes. when you let a baby feel the simulation of falling, his arms will reflexively go outward. there is no automatic action of creating tribes in human beings. chivalry is not instinctual, you can find plenty of tribes where men would be totally passive to your treatment of an obnoxious woman.

Maybe 1-2 million years ago our ancestors acted
more on their instincts than on their reason.
Since then, however, our brains have grown
dramatically especially our cerebral cortex.
This expanded capacity allows us to process
more complex data input than our smaller-brained
relatives are capable of. Ergo we have no need
for instincts. Try this link https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/article...

I thought you were not discussing this. from an evolutionary standpoint, all organisms other than man have instinct. Having an ability to reason is a severe detriment when the organism is young. The ability to reason allows you to deal with much more complex problems. for instance-building shelter. a baby tiger taken away from its mother will go through motions to hunt. a human devoid of human contact will not hunt, not build shelter, not fashion snare traps, etc.

the fact that you have called it murder means you have already decided the answer. no interest in discourse. by your logic, it is immoral for a physician to not treat any patient he may be able to save, or an engineer cannot decide where to put his energies, because a group has determined one path may save the most lives. Or the farmer-how to justify charging for food? the starving need to live...bottom line-you believe that someone has to live for someone else's existence. needs do not make rights

So what do you want? A theocracy? The mullahs would love you. I’m new at this game, I’m a baseball man. When I started managing I questioned the validity of the rules. I don’t make the rules I play by them, the law is the rule. If it was illegal it would happen anyway, this argument is futile. I’m sorry if that upsets you, but you mentioned it yourself. All we can do is let go and let God. I wish you peace.

I agree. You are not irrational. Hiraghm, however, is.

My sex life is not determined by whether YOU think I have to do something as a result of that. I "invited" a parasite when I ate the wrong food.
Your comment mixes two concepts. "legally" (force) and moral. Your last premise implies duty. The moral question is complicated and I fall on the side of the living. The fetus cannot survive until a certain point without living person. It begs the argument of extremes, because on that test the moral "obligation" of the pregnant woman will break the premise if the woman dies in childbirth. Who do you save? the fetus or the woman?

"[Man] is born naked and unarmed, without fangs, claws, horns or “instinctual” knowledge." AR "return of the Primitive

Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments.
Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” Virtue of Selfishness
"An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history." Galt's Speech

I am not irrational

I agree. I believe that abortion should be legal in the first trimester and premeditated murder thereafter.

But we are animals ( class mammalia).
Which actions in "keep us from acting like animals" are you referring to?.

Yes, I was aware of the "Law" and was hesitant about citing this particular quotation in its English translation. However, the exposition of the translation into what became the 'Purity Laws' in Nazi Germany seemed cogent to the discussion. Your attempt at suppression by intimidation only weakens YOUR argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_unwort...

You are beginning to sound like Nancy Pelosi.

It has been a while since I ran into your illogic.
You are still making the same mistake. You should read a book on critical thinking. It will teach you how to avoid making logical errors and how to spot them in others arguments. Therein you will also learn the use of the syllogism. This tool allows one to take a major premise, a minor premise, and reach a conclusion. The first one learned as an undergraduate is:

If all men are mortal (major)
If Socrates is a man (minor)
Then Socrates is mortal (conclusion)

Your mistake in this post lies in this line:
"If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being, then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.." which takes us from your major premise "If the thing being "aborted" is a live human being " directly to a conclusion
"then the "choice" to kill it has NOTHING to do with the woman's rights, with her "reproduction", etc.. "
You have no minor premise. Your logical error is
known as non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow") Study up and try again.

Yes - I am familiar with this. Thanks for linking to Wikipedia so others can give it a gander - particularly the bit about when the "law" does not apply. When one is discussing a subject that parallels Nazi Germany, saying so is not illegitimate. Telling others they are not permitted to draw the parallel smacks of Political Correctness.
The viewpoint I'm drawing from the "right to abort" crowd is the acknowledgement there is a life being taken, and that it's their right to kill it if they view it as unworthy of life by their personal subjective criteria, such as viewing the life as a "parasite". Nope, doesn't sound a thing like Nazi Germany to me. My apologies!

You know there's a rule on the Internet, that when one party calls the other a Nazi during an argument, the argument is over and the accuser lost?

Godwins Law

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin...