- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
And as you state, there are many products available today for women to use to prevent the pregnancy and the attachment of the early cells that have passed through the fallopian tubes to the uterine wall and some that will cause separation, but is there really a difference between chemical means and manual means. It is a practice that's been with humanity since it's earliest days by the older women of the clan using a stick or abortive herb mixtures. At least, today a woman or girl can receive the procedure with safety.
As to sexual irresponsibility, when, in what circumstance. Today girls are entering puberty at younger and younger ages, 10, maybe even sooner. Does society hold that child responsible? The girl that gets drunk or high. The one thats retarded. The one that thinks she's found the man of her dreams that'll take care of her for the rest of her life only to see him run out the door when she tells him she's pregnant. Who tells a girl or young woman that her dreams of being somebody more and accomplishing something are over, that she now has to be a mother for the next 18 or 20 years of her life.
Is the practice abused? Everything in life is abused. Are some of those fetuses geniuses in the bud? Maybe, but probably not if raised by a young woman forced into being a mother against her will, struggling to buy baby formula and diapers. The point is IMHO, that girl/woman's body, life, and future is owned by her--no one else, no one else's morals or beliefs. A woman and a man live different lives and I'm not too sure that a man has any business ever criticizing a woman's choices.
It's her's to do with as she will and it must be so in order for freedom and liberty to exist for any of us. There is simply no way around that.
I've said a lot here, and that's the end of it for me. No more.
Apply reason: rights cannot conflict. Man's fundamental right is life - his own life. A woman's body is her's to do as she chooses. Her fetus cannot have equal moral status. Period.
Modicum of effort...well, depends on where you're from. They aren't available at any of the pharmacies in my town, so if you're a teen without a car, you're SOL.
over and over again... consensus and 'agreement' are NOT == Truth. They're just consensus and agreement.
But you disagree....
Spot on!
I just got the point of 'fingers,' too... There's no more logic to defining 'life beginning with a heartbeat' than defining it as 'when fingers or toes are visible.' Thanks for that!
and I suggest that we make the term "Irrationalist" a standard description and use the term everywhere it's appropriate!
Cheers!
+af.com
Morality does not bind one's actions because of mistakes! Ridiculous argument.
An important part of any integrated system of morality is that actions have consequences. You would not say that in the list of mistakes above, the person making the mistake has the right to shrug off the consequences of the mistake and bear no responsibility at all -- no diminution of the grade, no impact on the marriage, no wrongful death action for the person haplessly in the intersection. Why, then, is this particular mistake exempted from the general principle that one must bear the consequences of one's choices?
Children do not appear instantaneously with sex, their development and ultimate birth, if it occurs at all, depends on a multitude of causal factors and choices over a long period of time. There is no duty to submit to one possible consequence demanded by the anti-abortionists.
And my point was that choices remain with such mistakes; no one can take your choices away. Your examples are off point; e.g. if you fail to turn in a term paper, you violated the teacher's rule and you lose the choice of grade.
Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f... )
[Please do not] Cast obscenities or be rude. This is the Gulch. You can do better.
Please refrain from any further gratuitous foul language.
Ok, that was fun.
Still there's an argument to be made for the 4th term killing were a defect seen in utero that justifies termination, become known after delivery.
Likewise, just before my mom perished in June, she had to go onto a heart/lung machine to sustain her breathing. In my mom's case, she had specified what she wanted in a living will. But suppose she hadn't and I had power of attorney (which I did), would it have been OK for me to say no to this? If breathing is the primary criterion, then the answer is yes, and yet I know many people who have been on heart/lung machines during surgery that have lived for 20 years after that. The dilemmas to consider in these life and death decisions are not so clear cut, but the effects of a "no" decision are binary (life or death). It is precisely this ambiguity (I know this is anathema to an Objectivist.) that makes me error on the side of caution.
I also had power of medical authority as well as power of attorney over my father. I had not a problem "calling it" and actively calling for a shot of Atavin three days after he lost his mind from prostate cancer gone to bone and him with a broke neck from a fall 4 weeks earlier.
Would it have been OK for YOU to say no? I'm in no position to judge another's moral flavors and on that basis leave the decision to birth or terminate to the woman, the woman whom I can talk with, that knows she is going to die, that has enough knowledge to know what comes of being pregnant to want to birth or terminate. In other words the decision is hers, the responsibility either way is hers, the body racked with a possible fistula, hers. To insert myself into her life by voting for a candidate that would intrude into her reproductive choice on the basis of possessing a superior moral taste is anathema to me.
A man is not required to donate organs nor provide aid to an accident victim. Nor should a woman be legally indemnified by her decision to birth or terminate.
Regarding the 26 week premature baby, it is a major endeavor to keep that child alive. I have been through it watching my cousin born at 26 weeks. The hospital staff wanted to try to save my cousin as much for the learning experience as anything else. I don't know about the legality of whether or not they are required to save such a fetus. Without insurance, the question would have been moot because the cost would have been more than the parents could have afforded. In that case, the mom and dad chose to go through with the C-section, and it worked out well in the long run.
Your arguments are quite reasonable.
I don't think I fully matured until I was Logan's Run 30, by the way.
Clerk asks how far along is the fetus?
Woman replies... "About 79 months...."
As a real life example, let us consider the Casey Anthony case. If Casey Anthony killed her child and put the child in the swamp, then I think we would unanimously agree that she murdered her child. If on the other hand, Casey Anthony put her child into a swamp while the child was still alive, and abandoned it rather than getting a post-birth abortion, we would see whether or not the child was capable of taking enough actions to sustain its life.
As sophisticated as medical science has become, we still can't prove when "life" begins. Of course, how one chooses to define it varies wildly from one person or group to another, But all said and done, there's no certainty as to when during a pregnancy (if at all) there exist the characteristics generally accepted that define intelligence, awareness, and the many other functions which confer human being status and attendant legal rights.
On the other hand, what IS certain is that a substantial number of unplanned but delivered babies grow up unwanted, unloved, with poor parental role models and they develop criminal and sociopathic lifestyles. So where does true responsibility lie? No easy answers here, but certainly the politicians should stay out of it!
When does life begin? THAT is the $64 million question which must be answered.
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.
If you mean a parasitical entity versus a growth of cells, you have to define what you mean in terms of essentials. If you mean living cells with a distinct genetic structure it begins after the sperm and egg unite. But none of that matters for having rights because rights do not depend on being "living" alone. That is why the religious appeals in the name of "science" determining "life" are bogus posturing on behalf of religion, ducking the entire essential issue of the nature and source of rights.
And I'm certain that the anti-abortion contingent won't buy it... :)
I believe that this kind of 'agreement on the definitions' is key to the discussion... and impossible to achieve.
We can hope that some day....
What is the difference between a fertilized egg and a baby? Time to develop. That's it. Life is not dependent on how convenient it is to any other person. It either is or it isn't. You prove to me that you have a device that can determine the presence or absence of human life, and I'll buy your argument. Until then, all you have is conjecture.
Your attempt to replace the philosophical basis of rights with the question of when some form of "life" begins is not scientific precision, it changes the subject. This has been explained to you many times in different forms. You continue to ignore it. Continued proselytizing of your religious beliefs on 'life begins at conception' with "rights" mystically attached is not discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy, which you continue to misrepresent and attack. If you can't discuss Ayn Rand's ideas then drop the subject. Your repetitious promotion of their opposite does not belong here.
Prove to me when consciousness begins. Neither citations of Rand's beliefs nor yours are sufficient. Prove it. End of story. End of discussion.
Go for it!
In the cases where no confirmation is presently available, efforts should be made to acknowledge this simple fact - the fact of ignorance - and work towards a solution. That is my single objection to the entire pro-abortion stance - it can not be substantiated by observation and is wholly derived by conjecture. Furthermore, observation undermines their claims, whether it be heartbeat detection, brain-wave detection, pain avoidance, or even just the simple passage of time and basic development.
It is the predilection to announce policy without observational evidence that creates the controversy. Such is the Objectivist's denunciation of the religionist, but to avoid blatant hypocrisy, the Objectivist must then take measures consistent with this standpoint or they fall prey to contradiction. Thus my call for consistency: all who advocate for abortion must adhere to the same level of scientific inquiry they demand on other points of philosophy. Failure to do so allows the critic to point out this incongruence as nothing more than opportunism (convenience) and a violation of the basic premises of an observation-based philosophy.
Ayn Rand has already explained the basis and nature of rights, which you do not understand. There was and is nothing else to "wait" for. Your assertion that abortion rights are "conjecture" for "convenience" that "cannot be substantiated" is false. Your own ignorance and confusion of Ayn Rand's philosophy does not excuse your misrepresentations and attacks on it, and does not excuse the claims posturing as "science" in which you are willing to sacrifice the rights of a woman to a religious notion of intrinsic "rights" mystically attached to the "life" of an egg. That is not "science".
It is not logical to demand that everyone submit to your religious claims as the basis of understanding, followed by demands that everything else be rejected as perpetually still "open" as "agnostic" while you cling to your faith as an absolute. Your religion is not the basis of discussion and is not the criterion for evaluating it. This is an Ayn Rand forum, not a platform for you to proselytize your religion in a preposterous claim to "science" as you repeatedly attack Ayn Rand's philosophy that you neither understand nor are willing to tolerate for its positions rejecting your religion.
Yes, and you keep ignoring one of the foundational ones: evidence obtained by observation. You love to beat this to death in debating the religionist (which you claim me to be) yet your own views on abortion are fueled by the very idealism and faith you so decry in others. There is nothing observational in such a position. It is pure zealotry, hypocrisy, and idealism - the furthest possible thing from logic.
"Ayn Rand has already explained the basis and nature of rights, which you do not understand."
Ah, so now you claim the right to tell me what I understand and what I do not. Your arrogance knows no bounds. Rand produced theories entirely subject to re-evaluation. She did not claim to be God nor a prophet nor a perfect, infallible person. She was a philosopher every bit as mortal and subject to infirmity as the rest of us. As my own sentient being, I have every right to challenge her theory on abortion and point out the glaring logical holes in it. I can't help it if you don't like the inconvenience of that reality, but my sentience is beholden neither to her, to you, nor to anyone else.
"This is an Ayn Rand forum..."
So respect it. Respect the people who frequent it. Respect the principles of observation and rational debate. And if you are so invested in it, pull our your pocketbook and demonstrate it with the power of the dollar - or forty of them. Until you do that, you are a hypocrite. You are a moocher. You deny the very tenets you claim to hold so dear.
Yes, I absolutely reject Rand's position on abortion. It passes neither the observational nor logical tests necessary, as I point out. Until someone comes up with a device to detect consciousness, I will continue to treat the unborn as if they already possess consciousness because the alternative is to make that determination by subjective means. And we have seen in history from the likes of Adolf Hitler, Margaret Sanger, and many others what happens when one begins to justify only certain kinds of people as being people. If you choose to throw your lot in with them, that is your choice, but I will not be joining you.
I think that what is funny is that you call me a religionist and simultaneously tell me you know what I am thinking, yet have no idea what it is I actually believe. If you knew what I understand and how I came to understand it, it would drive you mad. You don't seek to understand anyone, however. The only thing you can do is to yell, and scream and call people religionists who disagree with you, rather than engage in actual meaningful dialogue. The only people who can't disagree with others congenially are the ones who are so insecure in their own convictions that any challenge to those convictions leaves them stammering out pre-rehearsed accusations and ad hominem attacks. They attempt to bore their perceived opposition to death by telling themselves that if they try to beat the opposition with the same stick enough times they'll win - even if it is simply by boring their opponents to death. Good luck. You keep on waving that pool noodle.
That's logically, and hopefully, philosophically Impossible!
You (One) can only get Agreement on 'when life begins' or "at which point is abortion moral or immoral or legal or illegal"!
I really can't understand why you keep pursuing that line of "thought" when it's pretty orthogonal to the Plane of Reasoning we try to stick to here.
I think ewv is right... (see above)....
Ciao, dude...
http://time.com/3956781/women-abortio...
Until you can scientifically and positively determine when human life and consciousness begins, a decision to terminate a fetus is a subjective one dependent on one condition: convenience. To me, that's a pretty poor argument to use to justify terminating life.
This has nothing to do with "sentience", and "life" does not arbitrarily have "rights". That is a religious premise attributing mystical intrinsic value deemed to exist prior to conceptual understanding and explanation. Objectivity in formulating concept and principle to understand the world, as opposed to mysticism and subjectivism, is not a "slippery slope". It is a requirement of human understanding. Your method of religious thinking is over a cliff.
If you can't discuss Ayn Rand's philosophy then please go somewhere else with your anti-Ayn Rand religious proselytizing. It doesn't belong here. Your repetitive misrepresentation and false accusations, while refusing to acknowledge the many explanations given to you, was long ago far beyond the realm of rational discussion and is not innocent.
She is the individual and she "owns" the pregnancy, she owns the responsibility, she owns the choices, she owns the consequences of those choices. Not you, not me, not government.
Now, having concluded the above, I will note that the only student loan I ever took out ($500) was to pay for an abortion some 50 years ago. Colleen made the choice, we executed (!) the choice and we bore the consequences which, in sum, were to be able to make other choices without the complications of a child.... and neither of us ever regretted the decision.
Guaranteed.
Does that mean that when that choice is taken away through rape that the woman is responsible? No. The perpetrator is and should be held responsible (my wife advocates for mandatory castration). But that is by and far away the minority cause of pregnancy, not the majority. Most abortions are for voluntary pregnancies.
A woman doesn't ever choose to get pregnant at all, however. It is not in her power one way or another. She can not control either the release of the egg or the movement of the sperm. She has no control over the penetration of the egg nor the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. She can not control her own monthly cycle to coincide with her wishes. The limited control she has over the process (excluding rape) is to choose if and when she engages in activities which make pregnancy possible and for which her body (and his) was designed.
If she engages, however, she is taking that risk level above zero. She is choosing to spin the wheel of chance. And once spun, it can be neither halted nor un-spun. Choice leads to consequence however "undesirable" they may be. There are a whole host of such choices in this world. What you are focusing, however, is on a mitigation of consequence due to inconvenience - not the choice itself.
I think the other thing that should get brought into play is that most people find joy in children. It's pretty hard not to look at an infant's face and not feel something soften inside - something that says that this is an innocent, precious person full of potential. I look back at my life and find that most of the happiness in my life has been my interactions with family. The smiles and squeals of delight from my 1-yr-old son as I toss him into the air are precious and irreplaceable to me, as are my interactions with my other children such as those from playing games last night. One can look at abortion as avoiding responsibility, or as foregoing the happiness they could be having. Why is it that sex is so pleasurable? Is it not a mechanism of the species to encourage its propagation and continuation? Why is it that some assume that they can have the short-term pleasure and not the long-term consequences of children?
All women are victims. Men are evil.
My point was that if one thinks that castration is an appropriate punishment... OR deterrent, why "only" castration?! Why ANY punishment in particular? And the opening salvo is, "well, how about raising the punishment/deterrent bar from castration to capital punishment?!"
In a human fetus a heartbeat would rightly indicate the formation of a key organ to sustaining life. Because the fetus is still in an early formative state it should be stripped of its humanity? If that heart is a human heart then is it not an underdeveloped human? If these abortions are not human, why is PP harvesting the parts and selling human organs and tissue?
However, we are clearly in the tiniest minority here. I don't believe that even the development of intrauterine monitoring devices that demonstrated [here I'm hypothesizing] that the fetus is humming Bach and doing rudimentary algebra would sway most Objectivists away from the immovable position that birth is the only dividing line that matters.
It quotes Ayn Rand as stating: "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. " Leonard Peikoff makes a similar comment.
So it would appear that Rand sees an argument, not a moral absolute, in the later stages of pregnancy, a nuanced approach, not a meat cleaver dividing a pregnancy into pre-birth and after-birth [no pun intended].
To "argue" about later stages of development, or anything about any rights, requires a basis of understanding the nature and source of rights to know how to explain any additional factors. Those who are on a crusade to ban abortion don't have that understanding and no such discussion is even possible, let alone argument.
It is wishful thinking to believe that Ayn Rand condoned attributing rights to a potential or that "medical advances" could change that in any way other than preferred, sensible practices where warranted. She wrote: "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"
If it's possible to remove the fetus without killing it, it's reasonable for the law to require that option and forbid the killing. But for the vast majority of abortions, it's not possible.
If one says that the newborn has rights that the fetus shortly prior to birth does not, then the definition of life based on a sufficient number of self-generated actions needs to be updated.
No, there is no practical difference - the issue is not about that late term.
Wrong - the newborn is capable of self-generated action; don't confuse moral independence with the need for assistance to survive.
What is illogical is your claim that a newborn is an independent being. They can do some things, but arguing that a newborn is independent is absurd. Even if you are arguing for a newborn's moral independence, you are not being logical. A child has no concept of right or wrong (i.e. cannot be rational) until their age is counted in years.
From Rand: "Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." Anyone who seriously argues that a newborn fulfills that definition has never seen a newborn. End of argument.
Some will say that's not the same, but a prenatal test is fairly common today to determine mongoloidism and other defects, and many parents choose abortion of that baby at that point. They might say they're choosing the quality of their life over the fetus, or choosing to make room for a hopefully normal child that can become a human.
I am not confusing biological life with a human. What I generate in my cell culture lab is not human life until it gets implanted into a human being. It is "alive", but has no rights per se.
For your cell culture, are you implying that once it's implanted it's a life?
A quote that comes to mind: "At its core, then, political correctness is nothing more nor less than the unjust intimidation of others into thinking and speaking a certain way. As such, it is pure totalitarian mind control." —David Kupelian
Glad your child was normal. Both of my son's mothers had the test because of their age at the time. Both boys are exceptional.
Parents are simply acting as surrogates in the beginning.
Read a little Rand.
From Galt's speech:
"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."
"No pinch hitter can live your life". A surrogate is a pinch hitter.
A right to life means a right to engage in self-generating action. That does not mean that a baby can't depend on its parents for assistance - as an old person might be dependent on another for support. But after birth, he has the ability to perceive and use his mind independently.
Every Objectivist I have known fully understands and accepts her definitions perfectly fine.
I quoted Ayn Rand's relevant definitions. I understand the definitions.
I have my own moral code because I am my own highest authority. My moral code is close to that of Objectivism, but I do not consider myself an Objectivist.
Jbrenner, "I have my own moral code because I am my own highest authority. My moral code is close to that of Objectivism, but I do not consider myself an Objectivist." Respect.
Again, grasp what Rand is saying about life and independence. I can say no more.
The moral case for abortion is not about the particular moment prior to birth. However, abortion is not a practical issue toward the end of pregnancy.
If not rights, what about its legitimacy to simply exist? It did not choose to exist, that was done for it. Why should its existence be sacrificed because two people made a choice AND neither acted responsible enough to use protective methods?
As for irresponsible sex, when a woman choses to have sex it is her right to have sex. If she happens to become pregnant, well it was her choice to have sex and not take any precautions so be it.
Do not confuse the two actions
I think thats what I'm trying to understand. I don't particularly subscribe to ANYTHING just because someone/something say its so. Considering all we know about the development of life today would Rand alter her philosophy in this regard.
I would assume, because this is not religious dogma, that all the facts would be considered prior to her making her pronouncement to her followers. The advances in science and health would factor into her assessment and weigh on her edict, no?
Lastly, No matter how/when you define life, the actions of the "couple" are irresponsible.
Your comments reveal a misunderstanding of the integrated nature of Objectivist philosophy and, I hope, were not intended as subtle 'digs' at people that have a reasoned appreciation of Rand's philosophical discoveries.
There are no contradictions involved. An unborn human fetus is not a "child".
The actions of the couple if consensual vs rape are theirs and if pregnancy is a result so be it. Daily I see women of all ages here walking with toddlers. In my opinion they are irresponsible because they have chosen to bring new life on the planet even though these toddlers will not get much of an education and become responsible adult people because their parents weren't to begin with.
I will go no further than to say the subject should never have been broached.
Men should think with their brains, not only their penis. Knowing that their act may incur future liabilities should encourage them never to be without extra condoms.
If a man says, I have no intention of being with you in the very beginning and teh woman chooses to keep the child why should he have to pay at all?
You can't have you cake and eat it too. Oh yes, in this society you can, provided you're female.
Women are learning to think with their brains, though mostly with their hearts. The ages-old meme that women are subservient to men and must do what the man wants of them--keeping house, cooking meals, servicing him sexually, bearing his children--has not been eradicated. "To honor and obey" has not gone away. Women are still sold into involuntary marriages, and churches still encourage men to discipline their women. Domestic violence is notorious evidence that women do NOT have control over their lives.
Our culture is still suffused by such prejudice, or there would be no controversy about abortion rights. The churches, mostly run by men, are heavy contributors to this criminal policy. There is no cake.
As long as the woman has the choice to use birth control (and have her man use it as well), I see no need for abortion in the US. Again, thats not the world we live in.
You don't like abortion for religious convictions. That does not give you or anyone else the right to dictate to a sovereign individual what they may or may not do with their body. Abortion may well be the most responsible choice, considering all the factors of that person's life.
It bothers you, fine. Just stay out of other people's business. You fret over the many terminated pregnancies. How about fretting over all the welfare mothers who see additional pregnancies as just a way to get a raise in the welfare checks from the government? The unwed babymamas with 5 or 6 kids, each from a different father?
Those are all side issues. The answer to your question in brief, once more: self-ownership, individual sovereignty. Priority of the actual over the potential, of the real over the not-yet emerged.
Irresponsibility is not something I particularly respect, again thats on me. When something I value, Rand's Objectivism, regardless to what extend I value it, clashes with something that makes perfect sense I question it. The individual right to self ownership does not provide a free-pass to kill someone because you couldn't take the time to be proactive or post active with birth control. The question of when life occurs is moot since (again) a variety of before, during, and after sex contraceptives is readily available over the counter just about anywhere. The entire matter can be avoided when both use precaution.
I do not have a comprehension problem. I do have a blind follower issue, toward government, God and even Ayn Rand. I cringe at "because XXX say so."
It makes no difference how you word it, IF the female does not want to go through a pregnancy regardless of the position attitude of the man she had the sex with it is still her body that is the incubator not his. I have heard and I suspect you have too of a man divorcing his wife for the simple reason she was not interested in having children and he was. Please accept that there is no argument since you can not tie a woman down once pregnant and force her to go full term when she does not want too. It is her RIGHT don't you think.
The real question, and one which remains highly problematic and why the question got raised is how to objectively quantify and identify human life. And that is the problem brought up by AJAshinoff: if not at conception, then precisely when? Objectivists can not accept a subjective answer on the matter - it must be a concrete one which can be verified by science. If not, one is left to make a subjective judgement call or to err on the side of caution.
The dependency/viability argument is a non-starter, as children are dependent until closer to seven or eight years old (having several, I'm quite aware of the drain on my finances). One can use brain wave scans and heartbeat detections to draw similarities to humans, as does the DNA. All show that - if given time - the end product will be a human being according to anyone's definition. The question is whether or not respect for life is inherent or earned.
Pregnancy is and can only be the result of sex. No one here is going to argue that rape is or should be tolerated. If my wife were in charge, convicted rapists would be eunuchs - not 3-5 year prisoners let loose on the world again. But the choice to engage in sex is that: a choice. To disassociate the choice (sex) with the consequence (potential pregnancy) is disingenuous. Abortion is at best a mitigation of consequence - not an originating choice.
The problem still comes back, however, to whether or not one can positively identify human life. You have not disproven the point, just presented one of the cases under which any such objective and accurate meter should read negative. Your argument only underscores the point at hand: that of identifying human life in the first place.
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.
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.
I can respect his assessment. I also think there are far too many options to "fix" the "problem" stemming from two individuals irresponsibility that allowing the cells to propagate the point of a heartbeat should be unconscionable to any person. This is why I asked the original question, because I could not reconcile how Objectivists saw this topic.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/m...
Therefore, to me it boils down to the rights of two individuals. All things being equal I would normally say let each fend for himself. However, I can not do that when the impact is so very different between the two. It may be an inconvenience for the mother and/or father, but we are talking about the child's right to life itself.
In this case I think you can not avoid choosing between the rights of two individuals, they both can't have free rights in this case. When it comes down to choosing between the rights of two individuals I feel you have to consider how the choices impact each party. In this case it is the biggest right of all, life, v.s. something that may be significant but certainly not as important as life itself. I have to go with defending the rights of the person that wants to live. The baby.
How does all this play in with Rand? I am not sure other than to say the less technical knowledge you have the easier it is to support abortion and we get more knowledge all the time. I look forward to a day when science has developed a way to hear the thoughts of the unborn child...may not happen in my lifetime but it probably will eventually. Once normal people hear the thoughts of these babies I think it will turn enough public opinion to outlaw abortion. Of course it will not change the mind of the serious abortion rights advocates. I am very serious when I say that I believe a significant portion of abortion rights advocates would support killing 6 month old children if the mother did not want them (though they can not get away with actually saying that so they won't).
By this reasoning, could we use police to enforce bed rest or a certain diet if medical science says to do otherwise could jeopardize the life of the fetus?
You would want a drug addict to be held responsible if they were high and ran into your loved ones car killing them.
If there is one point that needs to be recognized here it is that Freedom always comes with responsibilities. It is not free!
Therefore, as a consequence of your actions, you may lose, in whole or in part, your life, your liberty, or your property. That loss will be entirely moral, because it will reflect your unwillingness to respect the rights of others to their life, liberty, and property, and you must suffer the consequences or there will be no effective societal deterrent against the sociopath or general bad guy who says, I don't care, I'm just going to break down your door and take all of your best stuff.
Then, if you engage in consensual sex, one of the foreseeable consequences of which is pregnancy, why is it taken that your "absolute" right to your body overrides all consequences of your actions, and you are free to destroy the incipient life that you have willingly or stupidly taken steps to create, with no more thought than blowing your nose? As someone else has commented, the incipient life was invited to the party, dragged in through no choice of its own, but totally at the mercy of the decisions of its parents, primarily its mother [or its irate grandparents]. Left to the normal course of events, it will develop to the point where any compassionate individual can pick it up and parent it, and that point is now earlier than the point at which the mother can terminate its life.
In "Of Living Death", Ayn Rand stated: "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months." Leonard Peikoff wrote, "The status of the embryo in the first trimester is the basic issue that cannot be sidestepped. The embryo is clearly pre-human; only the mystical notions of religious dogma treat this clump of cells as constituting a person." When did it become Canon Law that abortion is a moral right up to and past the point where the child is viable outside the womb? If "one may argue", why is the dominant response in the Gulch to any consideration of abortion basically: it's the woman's right to choose, and that right cannot be questioned at any point in the pregnancy until she delivers the child?
Did Ayn Rand in fact ever state that abortion is an unfettered right from conception until 10 minutes before delivery? That's not sarcasm; I would like to know. If the statements that I just quoted are her "ex cathedra" positions, then does Objectivism actually and necessarily hold that abortion is morally permissible no matter what the viability of the fetus?
When a woman has an unwanted pregnancy, she is doing no harm to another human being when she aborts the fetus. Your analogy is false.
Your quote from "Of Living Death" answers your last question re last minute abortions. There is other discussion here re. the impracticability of late term abortions.
The fact that this may happen is unpleasant, but the possibility doesn't go away just because you chant "Rights cannot conflict." That's a head-in-the-sand approach.
Moral principles are not based on emergency ethics. in your lifeboat example, each has a right to his life, thus the right to defend it. It is not a moral issue in determining who survives.
I really did not expect such an emotional response here. Please think it through.
It is immoral to take away the mother's right to her own body. You have to stop thinking emotionally - thinking of the fetus as a actual human with the same rights.
And while abortion in the late term raises different questions, that is not what the fundamental moral issue is about.
Sex was the mothers choice as was the choice NOT to use contraceptive before, during or after intercourse. In essence the voluntary action of the woman surrendered her sole dominion of her body to a new life. No one has TAKEN anyone's right from anyone, it was voluntarily surrendered. To allow conception to occur, today more than ever, is irresponsible.
Again, considering ALL of the birth control options today. I just can't understand the whole objectivist stance on this matter.
You are not trying to understand the moral argument Rand made. It has nothing to do her options. Her right to her body is fundamental.
How is acting responsibly (using any one of a myriad of contributive devices at any point) removing a woman's right to her own body? Isn't taking a pill as voluntary as laying with a man and allowing yourself to become impregnated?
This is, as I see it, a fundamental flaw in your argument, in addition to its false premises. For your argument to exist, it's inverse must also exist and that inverse is that a woman should be allowed to make a choice as long as she took some form of birth control. To say that this choice then confers additional rights a woman who does not do that is to conflate the fundamental nature of rights.
Birth control exists for before, during and after sex. They PREVENT pregnancy from beginning. They are not an abortion.
And why put the burden only on the woman? Is she to be punished for giving in to the man's urges? There are entirely too few women commenting in this thread.
If we are talking about women heeding religious dogma, we are clearly in another discussion altogether. I doubt that any woman who considered herself bound by the Pope's diktat would find Rand's analysis pertinent to her decision.
Why on the woman? Seriously? Because the woman is the one carrying the child for 9 months regardless. Frankly, any man who would lay with a girl or woman today without a condom is a fool unless he intends to stay with her (or don't mind giving up a chunk of his income).
You and others here are ignoring the moral issue Rand makes. Don't mix in other irrelevant factors.
To me, my understanding of life, Individual responsibility and individual accountability should remove the entire "accidental pregnancy" from the Rand equation. When "accidents" do happen, the condom breaks or a pill is forgotten, there are morning after solutions. Having to take a life, at any stage, these days, is irresponsible.
My reaction in such a situation would be simple..its not my own anyway...I'd pay monthly should I not stay with the woman.
FYI, married 24 years with two grown children. :)
Using the proper definition of life is, and you refuse to understand it.
"Independent existence" does not imply the newborn should have a well-paying job with which to supply itself with the necessities of life. The mother's hormones in most cases work adequately to assure her love and nurturing for the infant, to say nothing of the breast milk pressing her to suckle the baby. Any mother cat or dog would do that. The mother's instincts drive her to accept caring for the child until it grows and learns enough, day by day, to become self-sufficient. Any mother cat or dog also does that.
The newborn is equal to the task of sustaining itself in that relationship; it is born knowing how to suck. It also has a brain which is very busy downloading everything from the environment; integrating all that input may take years before a child reaches "the age of reason". Do not ascribe reasoning powers to the nascent electrical brain activity in the womb. The operating system has not yet been programmed for anything but receiving.
In a social structure, which humans form for mutual benefit, certain responsibilities arise, which become couched in rules and laws, the social contract, otherwise labeled as a moral code. Among these are that one's children are one's own task to look after, and not let them become a burden on others. That is not to say that some social groupings, like communes, can't have collective child care. The Bonobos do that.
Living things are genetically predisposed to protect their own offspring, their own DNA, above all else, in their own self-interest. That is what makes an abortion such a difficult decision in most cases. It is, however, an individual decision that no one else has a right to demand or forbid. The principle of self-ownership is prime. Too bad most societies do not live by that principle.
As for why some people have many children, mandated by their religion or politics, it is to outpopulate rival groups. That is the DNA operating on a larger scale of kin survival. Pyramid-scheming governments also need growing populations for future tax extraction, and when not enough new workers come online or too many old ones live too long, economies tank. But that's another subject.
Observe that most people mate from physical urge, the eager gene driving for its perpetuation. Rand had an idealized view of romantic love and sex as its grandest expression. To her, sex was an end in itself, a celebration of self and partner, not the means to a reproductive end. In the real world, few people fall in love after a deep intellectual introspection about a potential partner's highest qualities. A guy will skewer almost any female. Females will yield to almost any charismatic pursuer. Humans today are still far closer to their animal roots than to the exalted philosophical ideals of which Rand gave us such a heroic vision.
If you think someone is being dogmatic, then take up their perceived dogmatism with them. After being in the Gulch for two years, I don't think I'm revealing new information you haven't seen before.
I generally don't accept anything "just because" someone said so, either; so, please, drop the veiled barbs or the pretense they are not.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "I've been very civil in my responses.". Here is a sample of the "civil responses" and "examination":
AJAshinoff: "Again, I question... whether RAND would write the edict today the same way has she had." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "you move the topic to your favorite rant. There are words I'd love to use toward you but I will refrain from doing so. " http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "Oh, Please. I do not proselytize at any time anywhere. You're myopic angst against anything other than what you believe is again showing through." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "You don't get to MURDER someone because you didn't think before you acted." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "You prophetess would be so proud. You canonize Rand like anyone of faith would canonize their deity. Rand is WRONG. " http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "or truth blurred by the lack-of-accountability murder campaign." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
AJAshinoff: "Ass. Yes, a personal attack. No worries I reported myself." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
No one here has advocated deliberately ignoring easier methods to go out of one's way to have an abortion, and Ayn Rand did not advocate abortion instead of the contraceptives available at the time. Her article "Of Living Death" (in The Voice of Reason) was about the right and appropriateness of using contraceptives against an outrageous Catholic Encyclical.
Ashinoff's personal smears accusing people of "irresponsibility", "stuck", not "open to new information", and "religious dogma" (written sarcastically from a religionist) are straw man ad-hominem attacks that misrepresent those he is attacking and which dodge the central principle of the right of abortion, to be used when needed. He is not "examining" Ayn Rand's ideas. He is ignoring them.
You are equating any "new info" with definition-changing info. Again, you and others here do not understand Rand's definitions; you need to read more of her works.
His "question" began with the false premise opposing "Objectivism vs. Individual Accountability & personal responsibility", followed by the traditional religious denunciation of "sexual irresponsibility" and mystic attribution of "rights" to the unborn with a "heartbeat".
He is promoting unchosen duties with the usual slogans of conservative "responsibility". Conservative religious dogma is not the beginning and end of all discussion. It is not the premise on which discussion begins and is not the criterion for evaluating it. Ayn Rand was not a conservative. Those who want to understand her philosophy should read it, not sneer at it while repeatedly and obsessively promoting its opposite in the guise of a "question", ignoring her reasons while rejecting conclusions that clash with traditional conservatism.
It's Mark Levin's: "These are rights, you're born with these rights. They don't come from reason. They don't come from logic. They are. Period." That is religious thinking, the fundamental opposite of Ayn Rand, which is why they are unable to discuss the topic without rationalizing from a mystical premise of intrinsic value -- and why "human rights" are so arbitrarily attributed to non-persons, followed by rationalizing outrageous accusations of murder, etc. It isn't discussion or examination they are after, they want Ayn Rand's position and the reasons for it expunged for religion, just as they are out to destroy Planned Parenthood in a savage hysterical campaign devoid of objectivity simply because it provides abortions.
I'm glad you're not representing Obj.ism.
Note that abortion is far from a central/fundamental principle; but it follows from the latter.
The sex act is unrelated to the consequence so says the headless male mantis. Even in humans it is rarely the right time to have a child but always the right time for sex.
The surrender is to the sex act itself. That there is seen a woman's surrender of her sole dominion of her body to a new life has yet to be established as the norm.
Trying to discuss this matter based on signs of living tissues just doesn't approach the complexities of what we know as a human life, either philosophically or experientially.
Raising a child is a 24/7 18+ year commitment - writing a check once a month is not the same kind of responsibility. Fathers should be willing to take their babies and raise them.
Last thing I say on the subject of responsibility: If a woman chooses to keep the child, with all the resources available to her, then no check should be issued. Since she has the authority to murder to avoid parenthood - to avoid responsibility, it is solely her choice to keep and raise the child.
You have been told many times why Ayn Rand supported the right of abortion and you repeatedly ignore it. If you were interested in honest discussion you would acknowledge what has already been explained to you and try to discuss it from there. You don't. You continue to push your anti-abortion agenda based on false premisses and the most vile personal attacks as if nothing had been said.
Would you also advocate that the war on drugs is a useful war?
I will agree that is it certainly preferable for a woman to do what she can to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. But the moral issue stands regardless.
I differ with that in that I don't give that role to government. I maintain, that my self defense is my responsibility and I give to government only the role of retaliatory force to be used against those that I've failed to successfully defend against, or when I call them and ask for their assistance. Although government takes the position, that it can tell me when I've been offended against by others and even what is an offense, that is not Objectivist--that's statist and socialist.
Ayn Rand said, "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months." So, what is the dividing line between the point at which a woman has carte blanche and the point at which she must yield some of her freedom to the fetus? If there were no dividing line other than birth, then Rand would have said something entirely different than "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. " If "one may argue" then clearly we are not dealing with a moral absolute -- not in the later stages of pregnancy.
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.
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.
Many brain-dead individuals still have a beating heart.
Sentiency is the indicator of life.
At 12 weeks gestation the unborn are self-aware.
Most states have limits on late-term abortions.
Load more comments...