Just a thought. Can anything constructive to this discussion be gleaned from the other end of a life span. What constitutes the state of death? When can organ harvesting begin?
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~parkx032/CY-DEADD...

This is the one subject that has divided the most Objectivists the most, from day 1. There was [might still be] an organization for "Libertarians for Life" that was anti-abortion. Interesting. Strange, but interesting.
I don't think that either Libertarians or Objectivists have ever agreed on this topic.

Good to know you're in a long philosophical tradition, I guess..

No, Robbie, you have not even OFFERED a 'definition' but have merely challenged me to offer one so that you can reject it as invalid.

I've played this game with many others and you, too, have NOT 'won' the discussion, because there hasn't been one.

Others may be fooled by your techniques, but I am not. Go play in some other sandbox. Bye!

And as for red herrings, I've posted here and elsewhere that you're trying to extract a 'logical definition' from an issue of morality and ethics in which ALL such 'definitions' or 'conclusions' ARE NOT and CAN NOT be based on 'facts,' but ONLY Agreement and Opinion.

Shit, where do 'rights' come from, anyway?! Your God? Your Holy Book? Society's AGREEMENT among its members as to 'what's moral and what's not'?

Your question is meaningless, and my 'gobbledygook answer' is merely appropriate to the level of the question.

Robbie, if you are tired of what you call 'me ducking the question of When is a Human a Human,' I'm even more tired of you asking me to define the undefinable so that you can win the 'discussion.'

As I've TRIED to explain MANY timers to YOU and many others, There Is No FACT that can Define "When a human becomes a human."

A bunch of people can ONLY gather together and AGREE on some such definition. There is NO OTHER possibility for a 'definition' or 'fact' to come out of it.

So, NO, I'm not ducking the question; you're just playing a game to avoid seeing the Truth in MY statement that 'it's BY AGREEMENT" not by ANY possible kind of 'scientific proof.'

I'm tired of YOU wasting our time here trying to corner me into a place where you've defined the corner and then tried to paint me into it.

Cut it out!

or, alternatively, if you want to keep playing the game, YOU TELL ME 'when a human becomes a human,' along with what logic, science, experiments or PROOF you have that YOUR 'definition' is in ANY WAY accurate OR 'truthful.'

Thanks.

Outstanding comment. +1

Excellent comment plusaf. +1

No Robbie; I'm quite comfortable with my philosophy and understanding of it and it's breadth of coverage of the situations of life. Objective philosophy is not, in my understanding of the definition and common usage, an ideology.

But your continued use of sophistry, rhetoric, derision, and affectation of profundity in response to honest discussions of the piecemeal issues or parts of a serious philosophy of life with roots back through some of the Western world's greatest thinkers, eloquently and thoroughly described, expanded, and defended by Ayn Rand and many since, is irritating at best and doesn't always contribute to a serious discourse of how the existence and adherence to such a philosophy applies to the issues of today's world, or how such benefits individual men of the mind.

You have freely admitted and take pride in not accepting Objective Philosophical teachings and understandings. But rather than expressing or describing your own philosophical leanings (if you have any), and offering for discussion comparisons for the better or worse with Objectivism, you apply rhetorical comebacks, out of context restatements of other's comments, verbal entrapment, and little snippets of derisive response garnered from satirical debate techniques that are beneath most adults with honest and sincere and well thought out philosophies of their own.

In doing so, you insult the sincerity, integrity, and intelligence of many honestly proud Objectivist and others truly interested in understanding and discussing the philosophy and it's possible applications to their lives. Their are others on this site whose philosophies differ with Objectivism that freely and vigorously express their opinions in such a manner as to leave little doubt of their honest differences, some approaching curmudgeon level. But those are freely accepted and gladly responded to for the most part.

Robbie, I speak only for myself, but occasionally you just piss me off. I felt that it was time that I explained myself so that we might continue opposing or even agreeing comments and responses in a more open and direct manner.

Well, HELL, thanks for making that clear! Because for a LONG time I've known that when anyone is losing an argument based on logic and facts, they throw the 'moral' card on the table because there is NO way to factually reach any resolution after that point and the 'morality card tosser' will immediately claim victory at that point, whether deserved or justified or not.

You have thus signaled the end of a rational discussion. Thanks. Do you do that a lot?

Robbie, I'm sorry, but I'm really getting tired of trying to explain the difference between "agreement" and "fact" to you and anyone else here.

'Difference in status' might change when a fetus leaves a womb for ANY reason... whether it survives or not! And that status derives from legal definitions, which are, AGAIN, AGREEMENTS among members of a society as to what the 'status' is or isn't.

MUCH like the 'agreement in society' some decades back that a black/white marriage was miscegenation... That's AGREEMENT, NOT 'truth' and laws come from agreement.

The '20 minutes' difference' you mention is purely a red herring which has no bearing on the decision, discussion or argument. Cut it out! (no pun intended.)

And by using the 'hot word' WHIM, you've made the discussion impossible. Some people back out of house purchases for wildly inexplicable reasons and while that may annoy the hell out of the seller (AND the Realtor,) it's THEIR choice for WHATEVER reason.

I strongly suspect that any reasonable poll or survey would 'discover' that a vanishingly small percentage of decisions to abort (or not) have happened 'on a whim.'

No, sorry... 'human being' in that context is STILL a 'definition by agreement;' there is NO "logical" way to 'scientifically' DEFINE 'human being' that way.

ALL you (singular OR plural) can do is gather a bunch of like-minded people and AGREE that 'xxxxx "defines the start of a human being." '

There is no scientific demarcation, per se, so it's still all opinion and agreement.

As for the flip side of abortion, I know a guy who's run the neonatal part of Stanford Childrens Hospital, and every once in a while, he'd share with friends some new development which moved the ball up the field to a NEW 'lower milestone' or marker for 'the youngest fetus to survive outside the womb.'

All that does is say, 'well, we've been able to help a C-sectioned fetus of xx-week development successfully survive 'birth.'

There's no 'life,' 'human being' or any other ascribable term unless YOU (singular or with your group) AGREES to "Define It" as such.

Sorry, but I thought I had to repeat that and say it several different ways to get my position across clearly. There is NO 'demarcation,' possible (in MY never-so-humble opinion), imnsho.