It was topical and funny. All humor must have a kernel of truth, or it doesn't have nearly as much of an impact.

and I just thought the cartoon image was topical and funny... wow.

As much as I am amused by the cartoon's point, this cartoon illustrates the problem with Rand's definition of life. Regardless of its ability to breathe, if such a screaming kid is incapable of generating enough actions to sustain its own life, then should the mother have the right to abandon her child if abandoning her child is in her self-interest? Does society have the responsibility to bear the financial burden to raise this child in an orphanage? No. In that scenario, one of two outcomes that is consistent with Objectivism is to see if the "79 month old fetus" can survive on its own. It is theoretically possible that a 79 month old fetus might be able to survive on its own, but what if the screaming kid is a 39 month old fetus instead? In that case, the screaming 39 month old fetus would definitely not be able to take enough self-generated actions to sustain its own life. Regardless of whether the screaming kid is a 79 month fetus or a 39 month old fetus, if the mother in the cartoon got an abortion, I think all would agree that this would be an inexcusable act of force by the mother against the child. If one follows Objectivism in that sort of scenario, then the best solution is to have the mother find someone who is quite pleased to adopt the screaming kid. However, child abandonment in that scenario could be considered in the self-interest of the mother. And yet, if the mother did abandon the screaming kid in that scenario, whether the mother was being moral or not according to Objectivist tenets, that mother is definitely going to jail, unless that mother is Casey Anthony.

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.

Oh, oh, did someone call conscious?? :) Prove when conscious...ok, ok, I know the answer to this...I began in the year nineteen hundred fifty...wait, wait, wait. I'm sorry...I may have wandered into the wrong room. All unconnected persons continue as you are....

+1! +3 if I could...
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

What is there to "wait for"? How does one PROVE that 'life begins when...xxxxxx .... happens"?!

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...

Ayn Rand advocated a philosophy of reason. It's validity is not subject to Blarman's ranting insults. He does not belong here.

Rejection of Blarman's pseudo-scientific religious diatribes against Ayn Rand is obviously not "promotion of unscientific conjecture". No one has to prove when "consciousness begins". The beginning of "consciousness" is not the beginning of having "rights". Blarman continues to evade that. This has been stated and evaded so often that we have to wonder about Blarman's consciousness.

"Objectivism is based on fundamental concepts..."

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.

And your repetitious promotion of unscientific conjecture is similarly boring - especially when you keep harping on it as the basis for every single one of your arguments against "religion".

Prove to me when consciousness begins. Neither citations of Rand's beliefs nor yours are sufficient. Prove it. End of story. End of discussion.

On this point, we can agree.

There is an essential difference between the dependence of a child and a fetus parasitically dependent on a host. A new born baby begins to perceive the external world and begins to conceptually develop, in elementary form, as his process awareness as a coherent perceptual ability makes it possible. It is part of the life of a human being, in the context of his whole life, but he has to be born first. Rights are acquired with ability to exercise them and in the context of life. If you don't understand that then you don't understand why we have rights when sleeping or sick, either. It's not an argument against abortion.

You continue to equivocate on the meaning of "human life", confusing a person with genetic structure in cells and "sentience" of a biological parasite that only has the potential to become a person. The obvious difference between a fetus and baby immediately before and after birth is the biological environment of survival, ability to begin experiencing and conceptualizing the external world, and dependence on a host with rights to her own body. That is not arbitrary.

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.

Yes, it's fundamental that one cannot have a rational discussion or debate with someone who goes by faith, and it is important to not sanction it by trying. But we can explain what is right for the benefit of anyone willing to rationally process it. And we can expose the nature of what the irrationalists are doing -- from false concepts and epistemological method, to the barbaric and primitive ethics, to the misrepresentations and smearing of their enemies, to the political and ethical consequences of their theocratic statism foisted in the name of enforcing religious conservative "responsibility" to authority.

Objectivism is based on fundamental concepts and inductive reasoning from observation of the real world, which is the basis for all knowledge, not deductive proof in a system of floating abstractions occasionally linked to "observation".

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.

Rights are not dependent on "human" genes in cells regardless of whether or not there is a person. Claiming there is no difference between an egg and a baby other than time is not "scientific". It is false and evades the obvious essential differences. Ayn Rand's explanation of rights is not "subjective". She did not "make it up" and it is not "conjecture". You continue to entirely ignore her explanation of the nature and source of rights, and why it does not apply to an "egg" or a "fetus".

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.

But that is the tenet of Objectivism - observation to confirm truth. Barring that confirmation, the question should properly be left open until such a time that positive testing can lend credence to one side or the other. Scientists do not close the case on "dark matter" because they recognize that their inability to directly measure or interact with it creates significant scientific avenues and presents hosts of questions which can not be conclusively answered! In fact, its origin is only based on surmise.

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.

Who is ducking science? Show me what device you have that can ascertain the presence or absence of human life. If you have that, you are being scientific. If you don't have it, you are making up criteria subjectively.

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.

Without a tool to detect conscience, sentience, humanity, etc., you are making a huge assumption solely to justify your position. There is nothing scientific that says a baby is any less a baby by passing through the birth canal. You are attempting to justify your position by setting a completely arbitrary time at which sentience is endowed and rights are earned. That argument has already been shown to be a slippery slope of the worst kind.

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.

ewv. I completely agree, and those are the kinds of points I try to insert into any such similar "discussion," but in my experience, when the 'other side' is not coming from a 'position of rationality,' injecting rationality into such a 'discussion' is futile and fruitless, which a grad school friend of mine shortened into "Fruitile".

Spot on!

Well, that wasn't part of my point... but I like your response...

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?!"

Well, to me that sounds like either a red herring OR an opening for you to describe some examples of where that "ALL points of philosophy" require Proof...
Go for it!

I like that description!
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....

Ashinoff has presented himself as a religious conservative, hostile to Ayn Rand's philosophy, but tdechaine didn't say he is glad Ashinoff is not representing Objectivism, he was replying to someone else.

The issue is the right of abortion, not whether or not one should "ignore technological advancement and the availability of chemicals to prevent pregnancy from beginning in favor of irresponsibility", and not being "stuck on" anything "written long ago" or any other time. Obviously most people should take advantage of new technology that avoids the necessity of abortion, which is a more difficult, time consuming and expensive. That is not an argument against a woman's moral right to abort a pregnancy she does not want when it occurs for any reason.

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.