Why not capital punishment?

You're spot on, but someone who 'makes that jump' won't think so or agree.
Guaranteed.

You're asking for a "scientific answer" to a question that can't be answered 'scientifically.'

Tell us, please how the 'when does life begin?' question could, should or would be answered.

I believe THAT can't be done, and my observations over the past several score of years seems to bear that out.

It not only Can't Be Answered, NOBODY is willing or able to START the alleged 'discussion' by getting Agreement on that Simple, Foundational Point.

Saw a cartoon like that once... woman, dragging along a screaming kid, goes up to the counter of an abortion clinic and says, "I want an abortion!"
Clerk asks how far along is the fetus?
Woman replies... "About 79 months...."

and it's "a life" only because you defined it as such.
over and over again... consensus and 'agreement' are NOT == Truth. They're just consensus and agreement.
But you disagree....

I think that it makes a difference whether it has
brain waves yet or not. That's how they determine
"brain death", isn't it? So wouldn't "brain life" be
the same?
---As to killing it after it is out, as I understand
has been show on some videos, that is murder,
pure and simple.

Thanks, Technocracy. My mother's passing at the time and way she did was probably best for all involved.

That is a great question and corollary to the one at hand. The answer, however, delves into the theological arguments of morality and whether or not there are repercussions to such beyond the temporary pleasure. To consider on your own: the existence of that phenomenon we call guilt.

I support mandatory castration for rapists, whether or not they impregnate their victim.

I'm sorry for the loss of your mother in that manner JB

I think it should be 26...Obamacare claims they are not adults until 26. Sounds like settled law no?

I had read Rand's statement about the "essential issue concerns only the first three months" on numerous occasions. Quoting that has brought me nothing but vitriol. If the essential issue did concern only the first three months, then most of the arguments on this subject would go away. BTW, my wife's miscarriages were both at 5 months, after we had seen ultrasound photos.

"your statement is completely and totally dependent upon empirical observation and therefore technology, and subject to the epistemic limitations of empirical observation."

YES, PRECISELY. Everything in Objectivism should be empirically provable and substantiable. Anything which can not be determined by empirical observation becomes speculation. I am merely holding the proponents of abortion to their own rules: that their insistence on evidence becomes their own undoing is a fallacy they must address.

With respect to your individual points:
1) I don't disagree. I think it interesting to note, however, that initial response is to deduce pregnancy and an unborn person - not to assume a cancerous growth. And why? Because at one point people knew and were willing to admit that sex causes babies. That science can now delve into the process is fantastic, but it hasn't altered that choice -> consequence pairing one bit despite people being prone to rationalize.

I would also point out that natural processes such as miscarriage take care of the majority of issues with non-viability. That we can treat the others you describe medically is a huge improvement, no question, but the natural courses of the two examples you cited are undeniably different in outcome.

2) Uh, morning sickness? Missed periods? I think you're overlooking the obvious...

3) I don't disagree. You are actually agreeing with me in pointing out the limitations of existing technology. The techniques you outline can only observe the existing and leave it to the technician to interpret the results. But none of those tests directly measures conscience, intelligence, etc. - those things held as critical to the bestowal of rights.

4) Again, see #3.

5) "So it's completely arbitrary for some determinants of humanity to be based on a computer reconstruction of sound waves bouncing off a fetus, but then to specifically exclude others such as genetic testing."

I never suggested such as the bounds of the test for humanity. I merely pointed out that no testing parameters or equipment have been developed which can successfully measure humanity - either in fetuses OR adults! They can only paint a picture and leave it to us to compare to others for similarity - a subjective exercise. They do not, however, identify humanity itself and that is my primary concern: the lack of direct evidence leading many to rely instead on anecdotal evidence at best and pure ideological speculation at worst.

"You've not said it specifically yet but as you can see all of the above is contained in your questioning regarding determination of human life being empirical, and it's not fixed at any point in pregnancy."

What I am pointing out is that these are all measures of indirect similarity, but all rely on some measure of inference or subjective comparison to lead to a conclusion. None are direct measures of the critical attribute in question.

"And this makes your statement subject to the epistemic limits of empirical science"

YES!!!! ABSOLUTELY YES!!! We do not at present have the technology or science to positively identify "humanity". We even have trouble identifying it ourselves! Which is precisely why taking a subjective approach is so fraught with danger when right to life is such a key component to the philosophy!


The entirety of your post centers around the necessity for technology to verify humanity. While I welcome such, none of what we currently have resolves the issue of detecting humanity in the first place. In fact, even the technology we have makes the assumption that what we are dealing with is human and only comparison against that standard allows us to detect deviation!

I am reminded of a Doctor Who episode. In that, alien technology designed to heal finds an injured young boy wearing a gas mask during WW II and rejuvenates him - welding the mask to his face because it has no frame of reference. It has no ability to differentiate the boy from his apparel or accoutrements. It has no ability to define humanity at its base level. And basing its view of humanity on this flaw, it then begins converting other humans to match its imposed criteria.

So is the conundrum before us. We have no ultimate standard and no bounds of deviation to incorporate into instruments with which to measure "humanity" and by so doing confirm the bestowal of rights. Thus we are left to either side cautiously with the potentiality of life, allowing time to be the ultimate arbiter, or we can prejudicially and arbitrarily act based on our own admittedly flawed desires and understanding.

"Undue burdens on a woman..."

The burden becomes a possibility when sex is initiated, neither before nor independent of that action. If the woman has control over participation in sex (I have said nothing of rape), she also chooses to risk becoming pregnant as a result. Babies are not the product of spontaneous generation, but of a willful act. Once that act is done, there is no going back. The consequence is out of the hands of either participant. That it might be inconvenient for her or her partner at the time is irrelevant to the egg and sperm. They don't care one whit for her convenience. They have a mission to perform and neither his whims nor hers enter into consideration.

That they may argue the inconvenience of the matter only after they engage in sex is hypocrisy: they spun the wheel of fortune. That the result wasn't what they desired is irrelevant to the fact that they spun the wheel in the first place. As Rand pointed out, reality doesn't care what we think about it. It is. Choice leads to consequence regardless of our desires on the matter. We can't will the universe to do anything, and we can't change the rules to suit our preconceptions.

Abortion is an attempt to deal with the consequences of another action (sex) which had "inconvenient" results. What must be resolved to justify this decision, however, is whether or not life - specifically human life - deserves protection. The only way to do that is first to be able to identify it. Without that critical step, we are left to take subjective actions based on our own values - in this case convenience being a prime one. I posit that in light of Objectivism's call for substantiation and evidence to rule in place of subjective value, that we tread dangerously in presuming that we are not dealing with human life even when it is in utero. The myriad slippery slope arguments resulting from the determination that an embryo is not human should give all cause to reconsider both our logic and our motives.

Well said. I agree.

She did, eh? I missed that in her essays, and did not hear her speak. I must have missed that transcript.

On what basis does she decide on the first three months? On what basis did Mr. Justice William O. Douglas so decide?

I don't think she had any rational basis, any more than she had a rational basis to say no woman could serve as, or ought to seek the office of, President of the United States.

I would sooner amend our laws to allow duelling than to allow abortion on demand and without apology. At least the two parties to a duel must both agree to it, besides being lawful adults. What crime has an unborn child committed?

Celebrate abortion? The celebration is for the woman's sovereignty of choice for herself free of others' moral tastes and righteousness. Odd choice that you'd use tolerance as a pejorative when it involves liberating women from the dictates of others' sensibilities who carry no interest or responsibility for another.

Todd Akin spoke with faux authority “If it’s legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.”

Are your references to abortion causing sterility limited to one type or all?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...

What does one have to do with the other? Do married couples sexual acts not result in unplanned pregnancies as well?

Would you also advocate that the war on drugs is a useful war?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...

I do not see anywhere that I implied men were superior to women. Nor do I think man advanced with intent. I did say by some quirk of nature...I simply pointed out that we have the ability to make choices and it is regrettable how often we choose death when death is not necessary. As far as the end game is concerned? Your guess is as good as mine.

I don't think you're taking into consideration a great deal of factors here. You think that you're trying to define a "human being" as such based on a priori principles, but your statement is completely and totally dependent upon empirical observation and therefore technology, and subject to the epistemic limitations of empirical observation.

Here are some problems:

1) Without technology, i.e. until about a generation ago, we COULDN'T know what a developing baby looks like except if it was a) born live, or b) born dead. So once pregnancy has been suspected, unless you use technology there is simply no way of 'intuiting' that a woman is carrying a recognizable "human being" and not a mucinous cystadenoma of the ovary (a huge benign tumor). Of course we extrapolate to individual pregnancies based on what we know from research and from prenatal imaging, but this is purely empirical.

2) You cannot even confirm pregnancy without technology. Most pregnancy tests are based on elevated serum or urine levels of Beta-HCG (human chorionic gonadotropin).

3) In order to look and see if a pregnant woman is carrying a conceptus that resembles a "human being", you need technology. Routinely, that means ultrasound, MRI, or fetoscopy. Fetoscopy is a research tool and it's never done -- it involves inserting fiberoptic cameras into the amniotic space and shining light on the fetus.

MRI involves applying a very strong magnetic field in order to polarize all atomic orbits in water molecules, then reconstructing a visible image after measuring heterogeneous recoil times after stopping the magnet. And ultrasound is a computer reconstruction of an inferred physical surface based on the echos of sounds projected at a physical surface -- it's basically sonar.

So of these only fetoscopy actually visualizes the fetus. The others are nothing more than computerized constructions of a visual image. Furthermore, the recognizability of one of these images as a human being depends entirely on the type of machine used and the ultrasonography technique.

Interpretation of the image is also technical. I'd guarantee you that 99.999% of humanity would NOT recognize a still ultrasound image of a fetus as human unless you're showing a profile of the face. A cross section of the thorax would not be recognizable as such to someone untrained.

4. So how do we determine what "everyone recognizes as human"? A sick, dysmorphic fetus may look like an animal but not human to some untrained observers. A perfectly healthy 7 week fetus when seen on a transvaginal ultrasound may not look human at all to untrained observers, because it's only got little limb buds and barely any recognizable human features. So because we cannot get juries to determine "humanity" on an ultrasound, do we need to poll huge numbers of humans and create objective measurements that determine what is a "human being" when seen on ultrasound?

5. While the physical appearance of a fetus on an ultrasound provides some insight as to what's going on in there, so do genetic tests like karyotyping, fluorescent in situ hybridization, and gene sequencing. If I did a karyotype I could identify some morphologically "human-looking" fetuses that WILL NEVER become a viable baby. So it's completely arbitrary for some determinants of humanity to be based on a computer reconstruction of sound waves bouncing off a fetus, but then to specifically exclude others such as genetic testing.

In summary, this is how your criteria break down, and why there cannot be a deontologic statement about "what is a human being":

If you say "A human embryo can be defined as a "human being" when it is universally recognizable as such", that means:

a) pregnancy has been determined in a human female of childbearing age, based on an empirically validated test of serum or urine beta-HCG levels
b) the fetus is visualized using imaging technology (typically ultrasound), using a machine / model with empirically predetermined validity, which is operated by an experienced technologist or radiologist (don't forget that experience is also empirical)
c) the resemblance of this fetus to a live-born human baby is determined according to morphologic criteria that are empirically derived from polling large numbers of randomly selected lay-humans.
d) the expert opinion of radiologists, obstetricians, clinical geneticists, and other "experts" in this field, is specifically excluded because the determination of "human being" should not be confounded by evidence of pathology.

You've not said it specifically yet but as you can see all of the above is contained in your questioning regarding determination of human life being empirical, and it's not fixed at any point in pregnancy. So it's case-by-case, it's loose, and any determination of "recognizable" is subject to attack on a lot of very legitimate grounds.

And this makes your statement subject to the epistemic limits of empirical science, just like any other statement based on empirical science. I can say that "Someone has AIDS if they 1) have HIV infection and 2) have a CD4 count lower than 200" (this is one definition of it). But this requires that I specify what HIV infection is, how it's determined, and the validity of that determination; and also what CD4 count is, how it's determined, and the validity (including clinical correlates) of a low CD4 count. Or I could say "All shield volcanoes resemble Mauna Loa", or "Pluto is not truly a planet", etc. But all these assertions require elaboration and are meaningless without technology.

Undue burdens on a woman are tech requirements you're foisting onto the woman before you allow her to act on her choice, her shouldering of responsibility answering to no one else but her conscience, like a man does when considering to give or not a spare organ, blood, or aid that another may live.

I am giving this downvote back.

When you have 100 points or have paid to become a producer, you will have the right to give a thumbs up. You're well on your way.