Rights. When do they apply?
When does an individual have Rights?
It can be argued that Rights come from the moment of birth. It can also be argued that a person need comprehension to know of his/her Rights, to understand them, to claim them, and to insist on those Rights being respected.
Why would birth be a deciding factor in inheriting Rights? Would not the formation of cells within a woman, once society determines she's not having a chicken, cow or kangaroo, have Rights?
When does a birthed child assume Rights? Where does a parents obligatory Right to all aspect of that child's life and well being end?
How does a newborn have Rights whereas 6 months prior he/she had none? Does dependency factor in? Perhaps a certain amount of self awareness, comprehension and understanding?
I fell into a conversation with another group about the female genital mutilation that recently happened and it raised some questions about Rights, society and family.
I'm curious what my friends here say on the matter.
I've recently read on the topic:
Second Treatise of Government by Locke
John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and Property by Jim Powell
John Locke and the Natural Law and Natural Rights Tradition by Steven Forde (http://nlnrac.org)
It can be argued that Rights come from the moment of birth. It can also be argued that a person need comprehension to know of his/her Rights, to understand them, to claim them, and to insist on those Rights being respected.
Why would birth be a deciding factor in inheriting Rights? Would not the formation of cells within a woman, once society determines she's not having a chicken, cow or kangaroo, have Rights?
When does a birthed child assume Rights? Where does a parents obligatory Right to all aspect of that child's life and well being end?
How does a newborn have Rights whereas 6 months prior he/she had none? Does dependency factor in? Perhaps a certain amount of self awareness, comprehension and understanding?
I fell into a conversation with another group about the female genital mutilation that recently happened and it raised some questions about Rights, society and family.
I'm curious what my friends here say on the matter.
I've recently read on the topic:
Second Treatise of Government by Locke
John Locke: Natural Rights to Life, Liberty and Property by Jim Powell
John Locke and the Natural Law and Natural Rights Tradition by Steven Forde (http://nlnrac.org)
Rights do not conflict among humans; but assigning a right to a fetus would create a conflict.
Thus the mother's right is all that is relevant - cannot be compromised.
After birth, the mother/parents have to make decisions for the child as long as that child cannot make such decisions for himself. But that does not deny the child his separate rights; the parents must act to protect his rights.
The reason why we have rights, which has been explained to you many times, has nothing to do with the fact of simply being alive. All kinds of creatures are alive and don't have rights. You said "A right to one's own life in no way gives one power to terminate another's". You terminate the lives of creatures who are alive all the time. Only people have rights. This has nothing to do with eating children or fetuses, which is not required to follow a simple explanation.
"Only people have rights."
I completely agree. Your example, however, singled out the killing and eating of another creature as an example of presence of rights for man but not for beast. I don't see people killing and eating fetuses. If they have no rights, why not? If there is no difference between them, why not? It's your assertion. Defend it if you can.
You don't agree that only people have rights. You think fetuses have rights because they are "alive". That we don't "eat fetuses" does not give them rights.
A. People eat things that don't have rights.
B. Fetuses don't have rights.
A&B -> C. Fetuses have no rights and therefore may be eaten.
I simply pointed out that C doesn't hold in observation. Therefore either A or B or both must be false. It's actually 100% logical - it just refutes your assertion.
"So you have eaten a child or a fetus, then? If not, your argument is specious and ridiculous" is bizarre, not logic.
I'm not saying this to tick anyone off. I have legitimate reason to see the matter as I do. If you want to talk more on this I will, just not here.
As stated above I will explain myself, just not here. But then you'd have to be open minded enough to actually listen AND willing to check your premise.
There are no intrinsic borders within that process, but there are ranges that must be objectively identified and defined for the purpose of law so that everyone knows what they are to some practical precision. The exact cut offs are optional within our context of knowledge, but must be set at something in order to define law and rules (e.g. old enough to own property or drive or decide when to go to be or, later, whether to come home at night). The key is that the process of identification is objective; the principles are neither intrinsic nor subjective.
Regarding power of attorney for seniors incapable of making decisions for their own lives, there is an objective list of five functions that, if a senior fails on two of them, then that senior can be deemed incompetent to fully take care of himself/herself. The principles of identifying that is as objective as possible.
Several cases for examination:
1) a man is in an automobile accident and enters a comatose state. Is that man still a person legally and rationally?
2) a man is born with Down's Syndrome - an impairment in physical and mental ability which will result in his always having to be cared for. Is that man still a person legally and rationally?
3) a woman loses a child and enters a persistent hysterical psychological state. Is that woman still a person legally and rationally?
These are fairly straightforward cases, but it should be mentioned that Hitler argued that the Jews were inferior - not quite human - and therefore did not have to be afforded the same rights as other Germans. Many politicians in the US prior to the US Civil War argued that Negroes were inferior and therefore did not qualify for the same protection under the law. My caution is that when we start allowing people to be the judges of other people, we are asking to repeat the same tragedies of the past.
(PS - I too, thought evw's comment to be rational. I didn't downvote him either.)
It has nothing to do with subjectivist racist ideologues denouncing jews and/or blacks and does not mean that we should "start allowing" people to "judge" others: We already judge others for what they are all the time and act accordingly, which is a moral responsibility -- to do it objectively. It does not mean that anyone can arbitrarily decree someone to not have rights, or claim that everyone (or whatever else he wants) has intrinsic rights regardless of context and identity. Both are subjectivist and outside the law. Rejecting the subjectivist mindset of intrinsicism is not a "slippery slope", it is a requirement of objectivity.
The history of black slaves at the time of the founding of the country was a combination of anti-Enlightenment outright racism and error of judgment: Many prominent individuals, including Jefferson, observed the blacks around them and concluded that they were in some ways inferior because of their common behavior. They overlooked the cause: that those people had been wrenched out of a primitive society on another continent, forcibly brought here, and put to work in menial tasks with no education and no chance to develop as individuals. Jefferson in particular (who never was a racist) saw the error later in life when he observed first hand how well some of them did when properly educated, demonstrating that they had the same capacity. Outside of crude racists, that is now commonly understood. It has nothing to do with judging individuals for what they are as individuals, either personally or in unusual circumstances, legally.
We are talking about adults or normally developing children with objectively identified and well understood limited capacities. No one has said that anyone looses rights for not "expressing" them and none of this has anything whatsover to do with the likes of Hitler and Stalin.
If they are not intrinsic, then they must be earned through some process of qualification - a subjective process. Thus it very much is a question of intrinsic and objective vs earned and subjective.
The only difference between an adult and an infant is their state of development. If given two DNA samples, no lab technician is going to be able to tell the difference, all one may conclude is the gender and that both specimens originate from humans. That is a completely objective test. "Capacity" is always a subjective measure based on whether or not a person can complete some arbitrary task. But the measurement and goal definition and task assignment come from another human being's judgement - thus it is subjective.
Your argument is that rights are not realized (and therefore subject to protection) until that individual meets an arbitrary standard of expression. I reject that notion as subjective in nature. And once a subjective standard has been applied it is very easy to rationalize adjustments to that subjective standard. Hitler granted only the highest protection to his "master race" (the SS was notorious for this). Mao used political affiliation as his standard. Stalin as well. All justified their use of force because in their minds those whom they persecuted were not sufficiently "human". I use their examples because the atrocities they committed were entirely based on subjective viewpoints because they had abandoned the objective viewpoint of equality based on simple humanity.
Dropping context in equating cells and people because they both have DNA is not objective, it is rationalization refusing to make essential distinctions. We do not have rights because of the presence of DNA. That is a mystical concept pretending to be scientific.
Please stop equating anything not religious with Hitler and Stalin. It is tiresome. The long sordid history of religion has had its own atrocities from its own subjectivism pronouncing the "intrinsic". Ayn Rand explained her concept of objectivity at length. She was not a subjectivist for rejecting mysticism.
I never brought up anything religious. You seem to equate anything you don't like with the religious out of thin air so that you can discount it in your own mind. It's an awfully big chip on your shoulder you carry around and it seems to drive you to emotional outbursts and turn conversations to hate rather than debate. If you want to maintain any semblance of objectivity, I'd encourage you to rein in your constant vitriol and mischaracterization. One can disagree without being disagreeable and one can ask questions when there is some perception of miscommunication.
"Please stop equating anything not religious with Hitler and Stalin."
And you want to claim that I bring up false alternatives?!? You were the one who suddenly started painting any of this discussion as religious yet nothing religious was introduced by me. Hitler and Stalin were brought up as examples of what happens when people use subjective measures to discount the humanity of other human beings and justify the denial of their rights. NO, I'm not going to stop using the most pointed and illustrative examples from real life to support my position statements. I'm not going to apologize when reality refutes your arguments. I'm not going to justify your opinions when the data contradict them. It's your job to support your own conclusions - not mine.
"Ayn Rand explained her concept of objectivity at length. She was not a subjectivist for rejecting mysticism."
I never said she was. You are a liar to impugn such in me and I say that with all gravitas. I reject your attempts to characterize my speech in such an outrageous manner. If you can not behave better than a three-year-old, I'm going to petition to have you thrown off this board.
Paraplegics? Parkinsons? You do have me at a disadvantage since I've not read Ayn Rand's reasoning on the topic of human rights, but while I concur that mechanical assistance can be needed for those who have suffered a physically debilitating injury, I do not concur that a lost of rights is the result of those purely physical disabilities. Folks who suffer diseases that impair mental process such as Alzheimer's, Dementia, or birth defects like my niece who suffered a stoke at birth would be another matter. Diseases that impact motor functions and not mental processes should have no bearing on the exercise of a their individual rights or free participation in that societies benefits.
I am in agreement with what you have said, ewv, throughout this thread. I think that is what Ayn Rand meant in her writings, but to get that point requires interpretation beyond what Rand wrote, and I am experienced enough to know that Rand often would disagree vehemently, yet reasonably, when someone misinterpreted what she wrote.
No one can explain every point in exhaustive detail in their writings; a little further explanation consistent with ewv's interpretation would have been helpful.
But they don't have additional "rights" as entitlements as a result of weakness. No one does. There are no entitlements to assistance by others as a duty. Rights are moral principles defining freedom of action, not claims on others. There are adults with limited capacities within that small minority who are able to function in at least low level jobs with the assistance of others willing to help them. But they have no right to demand it as a burden imposed on others.
Our rights are objective, conceptual principles of morality based on our nature as rational beings who must think and choose in order to live, and the social conditions required for that. They are not about insights into something intrinsic in the sense of Plato's reflections of forms, Aristotle's 'naive realism' of metaphysical essences, religious attributions regarded as intrinsic, i.e., mystical, etc.
Rational principles are neither subjective (all in our minds) nor intrinsic (all 'out there'). They are objective identifications of facts of reality by means of our distinctive conceptual form of awareness organizing and classifying facts by essentials, in a hierarchy ultimately based on the perceptual awareness that is the base of all knowledge. Objective knowledge is awareness of facts ('out there') organized by concepts ('in here'). Our concepts organize knowledge in a hierarchy of increasing abstraction based on making essential distinctions, not a form of or equivalent to perception of intrinsic essences. Facts and context always matter. Principles are contextual absolutes, not out of context absolutes. That is true of all principles, from physics to the moral theory of rights.
There is no conflict, under our form of knowledge, between saying in shorthand that rights are 'inherent' in 'humanity' versus the rights accumulated over time through normal childhood development, or in part lost through debilitating disease, or never acquired in the rare subnormal cases., or lost in whole or part by criminal activity. They are all facts of reality that provide the context of applying the concepts and principles of 'rights'. Rights require and pertain only to rational beings as the essence, but defining and implementing them in law requires much more detailed knowledge of human development, capacity, and behavior. None of it arbitrary.
The rights of a newborn infant are much more limited than adults, and must be by its nature. If you think of rights coming from "inherently being human" as something intrinsic to all "humanity" as such and without regard to facts and context then you won't understand how there could be any difference.
A common religious view is the mystical claim that a supernatural being by unspecified means gave us "rights", whatever that means, so they are intrinsic to reality without regard to understanding or proof, waiting to be revealed, and apply equally, with equal emotional fervor, to everything called "human" -- from adults to cells that have human genes. That overtly mystical approach is often inherited, in whole or part, in the common floating abstraction approach to rights whether or not the person holding it has thrown off the original religious dogmas. It's an improper emotional way of thinking divorced from facts and essential distinctions, but can be hard to throw off when inculcated through years of early education and constantly reinforced, with no one explaining the difference.
The fact of being born is an essential distinction to becoming a person. It is required both for the biological break from 'parasitism' to become a biologically independent entity and for the possibility of beginning the exercise of a rational mind to comprehend reality to live. There is a continuously developed nervous system just before birth, but there is inadequate context for it operate on. Perceptions, and later, conceptions, require the ability to make distinctions that aren't there when trapped in the darkness and relative homogeneity of the womb, biologically directly dependent for everything.
That is vastly different than a new born baby as a distinct living entity focusing and looking around for the first time in wonder, and the subsequent rapid development compared to what was. The act of birth is a fundamental, essential difference in biological context, regardless of the continuity of internal biological development. The conceptual basis of our rights is not being called "human" because we have human genes, and not because we kick or twitch when poked.
A baby does of course have a major dependency on parents responsible for having brought it into the world, but that kind of care, which lasts in different degrees for many years, is of an essentially different kind than biological parasitic dependence and nothing else. This isn't about time and effort of specific tasks of care by parents. The baby has rights not because of the dependent care, but because it is an independent entity beginning to exercise its mind through the necessity to choose and focus to comprehend the external world for the first time.
But the obvious difference in capacity also means that by nature it does not have the full rights of an adult. If you understand that the fundamental right is the right to life, by virtue of being a rational being who must choose to think and act for living, including early development, you can see that by its nature as human it has that fundamental right, something that no human ever loses until capacity to think and act are no longer possible at all (or abdicated by a criminal).
But there is no conflict between having rights by nature as human and the facts of the context of development. They are not two different sources of rights, one 'intrinsic' and the other 'assigned'. That kind of confusion arises under the false alternative of the intrinsic versus the subjective (leaving out the objective) when improperly using 'rights' as a floating abstraction. Then it is emotionally attached to something called 'human' without regard to facts and context, as if rights were not objective concepts and principles but something intrinsic, accepted emotionally as a revealed truth instead of a formulation of complex knowledge depending on many facts and distinctions, which can be different at different stages of development.
That seems a bit off to me. I do understand where she's coming from. Should one have to qualify, measure up, to have the most fundamental Rights? Certainly those without the mental capacity to assert their Rights need representation (family, a loved one, etc.) but the slouch that sits on his couch waiting for the next welfare check, as deplorable as that is, forfeits his fundamental Rights?
“When the people find that they can vote themselves money that will herald the end of the republic.” - Benjamin Franklin.
I'm not analyzing this point, just pointing to an observation.
https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/govern...
We recognize that everyone is born with these natural rights, even before they're able to exercise them. The nurturing period from birth to maturity serves to put the exercise of these rights into social context and hopefully minimize friction with other persons exercising their rights.
In the case of abortion, I would argue that the personal ethical right is the same for the mother and the fetus. The fetus is unable to protect its own rights but it is impossible to delegate the protection of those rights without violating the rights of mothers and their means of avoiding full term pregnancies in any way. In my opinion, we need to concede that we will not ask our government to make the ethical decision and define a "legal" stage for their intervention.
If left up to me, I would set the time for government protection to occur at the cutting of the umbilical cord, while, on a personal ethical basis, still believing that the fetus had full rights at conception.
Leonard Peikoff once described it as "A floating abstraction is not an integration of factual data; it is a memorized linguistic custom representing in the person's mind a hash made of random concretes, habits, and feelings that blend imperceptibly into other hashes which are the content of other, similarly floating abstractions."
To see how concepts are validly an "integration of factual data" see her book Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. (And yes you are smart enough and educated enough to understand it.)
The concept of "rights" depends on its factual basis in the requirement of human reason to live and make choices, as explained in more detail several times elsewhere on this page and with reference to Ayn Rand's article "Man's Rights" in particular. Too often 'rights' is used as a word with only emotional ties to a vague notion of "humanity", then transferred with no recognition that the meaning and source of the concept does not apply to cells, embryos, fetuses or any sentient being.
So I say again if you don't like my opinion, quit talking to me.
I do want to congratulate you on being the first person I have met here in the Gulch that I will be ignoring going forward.
But our rights are being trampled all the time by those who insist they have a "good enough reason", usually on the false premises of altruism and collectivism. That illustrates the necessity of proper conceptualization and spreading the right ideas, not arbitrarily assigning rights as floating abstractions in the hope of heading off transgressions.
Therefore one might ask when does the Right to Life begin? I can see this reasonably argued as anytime between conception and self-actualization. While some argue that the former is too soon and most would argue that the latter is far to late. I have met many teenagers and Liberals that make me lean towards the latter instead of the former. I cannot possibly count the number of teenagers and Liberals that have made me wish for a Post-Birth Abortion option.
For me personally I would suggest that the Right to Life begins at the point that a fetus becomes viable outside utero without direct life support. ie. the child can breath on its own and only needs the normal care that every infant requires. My understanding is that this happens somewhere a little after 30 weeks.
In any case, our rights are particular to us as human beings, so we have to first acknowledge that human beings have the right to life among others. If we follow this rationale, then we can say that first we must identify what is human being and what is not. I agree with ewv that the fetus is not identified as a human being until it is born, or is removed from the mother. Although I have toiled with this notion from having 2 daughters of my own, but it becomes necessary to stow the emotions from the equation to have an objective perspective on such ideas. Someone smarter than me pointed to this reasoning for such identifications: you have a chicken and an egg, is the egg a chicken? No, it has the potential to be a chicken, but it is not a chicken until it hatches. It is still an egg for as long as it remains that way. A fetus is not a human being until after birth, that is when it changes its identification as a fetus (potential human being) to a human being. The fetus (at any stage) is still the potential of a human being, only when it is removed from the womb does the potential become a human being.
"viability of a fetus means having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus. Viability exists as a function of biomedical and technological capacities, which are different in different parts of the world. As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability for fetuses."
I'll continue to observe that the right to life is for human beings and a fetus is not a human being until it becomes a human being, which can only occur outside of utero.
So I ask you one last time, at what point do you think that group of cells become a living human being?
Our organs are made of cells, functionally combined in different ways, which in turn at an even smaller level are made of molecules, etc. With no integration into a human entity, that is all the cells are. As has been explained on this page and elsewhere on the forum many times, a person comes into existence when he is born. Individuals have rights by their nature as human beings, not because of cells. Groups of cells, fetuses and embryos are potential human beings, contingent on a successful integrated development. The concept of rights does not apply to them.
The concept of rights is a moral concept arising from the facts of actions by moral beings, recognized as entities, in a social context. It has nothing to do with either living or dead cells. As rational beings who require the use of our rational faculty to live, we require moral principles as a guide to choices and actions. That in turn requires moral concepts of how to deal with other people in a social context. It is not about "cells". We start with the concept of a human being as an entity, not the constituent cells and not "anytime between conception and self-actualization".
As Ayn Rand put it, "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context... 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." Please read Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" for a full explanation of the nature, source and purpose of rights as a moral concept.
Groups of cells, fetuses and embryos are potential human beings. They do not have rights. The concept does not apply to them. Nothing has rights only because it happens to be "alive" or "sentient". Do not use "rights" as a floating abstraction divorced from its meaning and necessity as a moral concept pertaining to human, i.e., rational, beings as entities, and do not treat human individuals as "nothing more than a group of cells".
Obviously the entire concept of Rights hinges on moral principal and when life begins IS a moral question. That question is answered by each individuals moral position and collectively by society as a whole.
Biologically speaking we are ALL nothing more than a group of cells. It seems that you believe life begins only after a fetus passes through the birth canal but that moments before that it is still only a group of cells. I myself would back that up by a few weeks.
The logical dependency of the concepts based in fact is not just a "proposal" and the crucial distinction between a fetus still biologically trapped in a parasitical state (not just a "group of cells") versus a new born baby matters. A fetus that has not been born is still a potential regardless of whether birth could have been forced earlier. That distinction is fact, not subjectively up to each individual or to be enforced "collectively by society as a whole" -- which is fundamentally opposed to the principle of the rights of the individual and the concept on which it is based.
Aristotle said that, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."
Arbitrary opinions are not equally valid, or "might be", or "just as valid as anyone else's". You are expected to read for understanding, not "fall in line". Your gratuitous accusation of the "Racist" mentality is false and crudely insulting.
As to you finding it crudely insulting that I compared you to a Liberal. I find it the height of bigotry and insulting that you offer your opinions as facts and refuse to entertain the possibility that another's opinion might carry some weight. This is something that Liberals are FAMOUS for and as someone here in the Gulch I would expect better from you.
How we develop and why we have rights are fact not opinion. It is a process with essential distinctions. Birth is not an instantaneous event whose existence depends on infinite precision from 5 minutes or 5 seconds or any other number, which your sophistry is trying to exploit to wipe out the essential biological fact of birth, the concept of which is obviously not arbitrary. That is sophistry no better than Zeno trying to wipe out observed fact with rationalization. Likewise for the absurd statement that human beings are nothing more than a "group of cells". If you want proof then watch a human being for a few moments. What do you think hold the cells together and accounts for the functioning of a larger observable entity of which they are the constituents?
Your arbitrary assertions are not just as good as anything else. You try to undermine rational explanations that conflict with your unfounded beliefs as no better than your own pronouncements. Rejecting your nihilistic subjectivism is not "bigotry". If you think everything is arbitrary opinion with no proof then you have nothing to say and there would be no point to discussion trading arbitrary opinions. The rest of us know better. Your gratuitous insults about a Racist mentality is in fact crude and an inappropriate diversion serving nothing but smears on behalf of your emotions. You can't even see the difference between Ayn Rand's ideas and liberals.
We are discussing when Life begins, Life not life. Life with a lower case "l" unquestioningly begins at conception and that is scientific fact. Life with an upper case "L" begins at some point after and this is where you keep getting it wrong. There is no scientific basis delineating when Life begins. Since it cannot be locked down to a specific point and opinion as to when Life begins is nothing more than an opinion.
You want to state that Life begins at birth; yet, you seem to shy away from my question about moments before birth. Seems to me that you are the one trying to use nihilistic subjectivism to deny the facts and your statements are in fact bigoted. You state your opinion, claim it is fact, and reject any who disagree. That pretty much is the definition of bigotry. Whereas I myself only state that Life begins at some point after conception and admit that others could have differing views over a pretty wide range. I do state my specific opinion which is at a point some few weeks earlier than yours, but I do not try to lessen your opinion. In fact I have called your opinion reasonable while repeatedly pointing out that others may have a differing opinion.
So while I assume that you are not a Liberal. Otherwise you wouldn't be here. I will state this straight out, you argue as if you are a liberal.
I have not "shied away" from anything. The precision of how many minutes or seconds measure a birth is irrelevant to the fact that it is observed to exist and is a fundamental transformation. Forever narrowing precision, arguing like Zeno's rationalism dragging his listener down to a quandary through sophism, does not wipe out the fact of birth and the fundamental difference it makes. Those kinds of arguments trying to destroy concepts are in fact nihilistic subjectivism. Without understanding essentials there is nothing identified to measure.
You don't know the difference between a rational explanation, which you refused to discuss, and a bald assertion of mere "opinion". You don't know what "bigotry" means either. Rejecting your emotional "opinions" expressed in undefined terms, including your personal hostile attacks, is not bigotry, not "liberal", and not "Liberal screams 'Racist'". Your posts are are filled with name-calling insults. They do not address what I wrote but in sea of insults arbitrarily and explicitly dismiss it as "opinion" and "liberal" to try to drag it down to no better than anyone else's opinions.
But how does that extend to children? If rights are incontrovertible, then how can a child have rights over its parents?
Simply put, Children don't have the same rights as Adults, and DO have a claim over their parents for the "Right to Life" (which is a part of the right of Self Determination). Once society has determined that they are an adult, then their claim over their parents ends, and their full rights begin.
For the nature and source of rights see Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights".
"'Rights' are a moral concept—the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual's actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others—the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context—the link between the moral code of a man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to moral law."
And:
"A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life. 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. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.)"
I believe there is an argument that the fetus uses his/her mind to comprehend its external reality while in the womb. Its reality being within the womb of course, but the fetus uses its senses of touch and hearing while in the womb. This was an interesting article I came across
https://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...
I would argue that to be not only an arbitrary condition but a refuted argument on top of that. The unborn can feel pain and detect light and dark. They can (and do) respond to familiar voices. Anyone who has put a hand on the stomach of a pregnant woman to feel the kick or movement of the unborn will testify that they absolutely do respond to external stimuli.
"Before birth it's not a biologically separate entity at all"
An infant in the womb is composed of separate DNA and separate appendages and organs. It has its own blood supply separate and apart from the mother's. Its digestion system is separate and distinct from the mother's as well. It is a completely separate person from the moment of conception - a dependent one to be sure, but distinct. When birth takes place, does the mother lose a portion of her own organs to the new baby? No. She expels what was connected not to her, but to the baby.
You left out that I wrote that there is "no way to perceive the external world other than occasional crude sensations of bumps or noise". That is not enough to comprehend the external world and is not even remotely like the exercise of focused perception following birth. You also misrepresented my statement that "it's not a biologically separate entity at all beyond the status, literally, of a parasite."
Trying to ban abortion because they woman expels the fetus (which is not a "baby") instead of killing herself by removing her own organs is circular.
"That is not enough to comprehend the external world"
And that is a nonsense argument. Comprehend means that we understand something well enough to accurately predict what is going to happen. You yourself can not "comprehend" the external world or you could have warned me that I was going to be involved in an automobile accident yesterday. The simple fact is that none of us "comprehend" the external world. Even the so-called "experts" specialize in specific fields of expertise rather than a general knowledge of "the external world". If you are going to place that as a qualification for rights, you place all rights beyond the capacity for humankind. I reject such a notion for what it is - a subjective and utterly nonsensical argument. Reason does not equate to comprehension by any stretch of the imagination. Reason is the ability to separate one's self from one's environment and draw conclusions about cause and effect. Reason is preliminary to comprehension.
"You also misrepresented my statement that "it's not a biologically separate entity at all beyond the status, literally, of a parasite."
You misrepresent the status of a fetus as a human being. A parasite is undesired and brings no positive outcome to the host. The vast majority of pregnancies are desired and the resulting children bring joy to the parents. I took only the portion of your argument which could be considered a real argument rather than a personal statement of opinion. (PS - do you have any children yourself?)
"Trying to ban abortion..."
The fundamental premise you argue is that anything still in the womb is not human. I have demonstrated repeatedly that such is a subjective argument and thus opinion. I take the stand that an organism constructed of human DNA is a person with rights deserving of protection no matter how developed they are. You take the stand that somehow DNA isn't good enough, but some action on the part of the human is requisite for realization and protection of rights. We disagree because your argument relies wholly on subjective judgement.
*
Let me present a question for you. In the movie "The Island" (spoiler alert), the protagonist lives in a protected bubble of life under the auspice of a global calamity. He is one of the few who have been rescued and brought to an "island" - a temporary sanctuary awaiting a more permanent relocation. He is among thousands who while away their days waiting. But he begins to develop an attraction (forbidden) to one of the other "rescued" and he inadvertently witnesses the actual relocation of one of the other "rescued". They finally escape "the island" and discover that the real world isn't at all like what they had been told at all. The protagonist then actually meets his original and gets brutally awakened to Reality: that the "rescued' are actually clones - created and raised in the event that their original suffers some trauma or accident which requires donor organs. "Relocation" in actuality is the death of the clone to provide donor organs (100% compatible) for the original.
So what say you: are these clones (as depicted in the film) human? Do they deserve protection and rights?
A cell or a fetus having "DNA" does not give it rights and does not make a cell and a person the same thing. A human cell with DNA is not a person. Primitive sensations in a dark womb are not the perceptions of the external world on which we base our conceptual knowledge of the world. That parents experience joy does not make a fetus a child or change its biological parasitical nature. You are a sophist promoting religion and trying to undermine rational thought while your rationalize your mysticism with phony appeals to science, not engaging in serious discussion.
You have no idea what rights are or why we have them. You are a mystic pronouncing undefined rights emotionally tied to the word "human", then used without regard to meaning and context. Ayn Rand explained at length the concept of rights and why we have them; it is not "arbitrary subjective opinion". If you don't care then go away. This is an Ayn Rand forum not a repository for militant mystics stubbornly demanding to be taken seriously. No one cares about your island bubble fantasies trying to convince us that we don't know anything because we don't have your revelations.
There is a whole spectrum along this. There could be a condition where she might die. Or she could have a cancer that might kill her anyway but is less likely to if she does a treatment that kills the fetus. There's also the scenario where she must be in constant bed rest or risk killing the fetus. In that scenario, do we use force to make her stay in bed? It would be nice to see technology to incubate fetuses and even embryos, so the fetuses' welfare isn't weighted against the rights of the person carrying them.
By what right does ANYONE assert their authority, for ANY reason, to do ANYTHING with that unborn child?
I contend, and always will, that the time for the mother to be to assert her right was before she lay with a man.
This is straying off topic. I'd rather shy away from the abortion discussion.
There are more then enough methods of birth control, both pre and post sexual intercourse, to relieve abortion as an option for all but the most extreme circumstances.
This was not intended to be a abortion thread by any means.
It describes the belief that just because there is a word there must be an entity to which the word refers.
In this case the prefix 'un' means undo.
When there has not been an action, 'undo' has no meaning.
There can be no "bigger" right and these fundamental Rights are not an entitlement. If all else is stripped away these Rights are what a person has by simply "being".
A Harvard law legal study analyzing original intent concluded that the 14th Amendment covers the unborn. It's an interesting legal analysis.
What the author of the paper does is examine other legal documents of the times and how they treat the legal idea of a "person". From those, he is convinced that the Amendment as written for that time would surely include the unborn and that only modern legal arguments of the past 50 years have brought any question into the matter.
The newborn infant has been born. That is what separates it.
"[E]ven a preconceptual infant has the power to look around or not look, to listen or not listen. He has a certain minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of his senses." [IOE] That is the beginning of rationality.
http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/wh...
It seems that the development of the human brain is a process begun at conception and continues for years after birth. Hence the argument that the act of birth is precisely the point in time in which the right to life is conferred is more opinion asserted than logically proved.
"Your post is unresponsive to the difference in biological context before and after birth."
OK Would you then further explain or define what is meant by "biological context" since I do not understand the differences between the day before, the day of, and the day after http://birth.in a biological context.
And secondly since I'm sure you agree with Jefferson's DOI, when does the right to life apply and why at that time of the child's existence?
This topic has been discussed many times on the forum. One post on this same page that is especially relevant is https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post... But it's necessary to under the basic concepts. Jumping into the middle of a discussion may presume too much prior knowledge.
said that you argue like a Liberal. You state opinion, demand that it is fact and badger unceasingly hoping to get the other side to concede.
The sad thing is that I have repeatedly said that while your position is opinion, it is a reasonable opinion. You just seem to want me to take your opinion as fact and that won't happen.
Makes me think that if I said that the sun will come up tomorrow that you would contridict me.
His speculative accusations are in fact false, and I certainly no longer expect him to take conceptual explanation seriously -- which means that any "concession", which I never asked for, would be utterly meaningless. But others can read and understand.
An acknowledged chronic state of "opinion" no better or worse than anything else is a mental state that is worthless. Arbitrary assertions are no better by demanding they be taken seriously as opinion that doesn't have to be true while insisting that anyone else's knowledge is also nothing but such "opinion" and not "scientific fact". That is a complete denial of philosophy as such, which of course is, at its best, factual, and Ayn Rand's in particular.
This an Ayn Rand forum, not Egalitarian Skeptics United. We deal in conceptual knowledge, not arbitrary word manipulation and frantic resentment of understanding and of those who believe they understand (as if that means "like a Liberal").
His assertion that a human being is "nothing more than a group of cells" is false, not equally valid "opinion". Obviously a human being is an integrated entity with attributes that any arbitrary group of cells does not possess. That is observable fact, not opinion.
The assertion that a right to life can be "reasonably argued as anytime between conception and self-actualization" is false. The concept of rights does not apply to whatever one feels like from conception on -- unless one is using "rights" as a floating abstraction that is not a concept at all, in which case one can meaninglessly "argue" anything, but it isn't reasonable. Why that is so has been described here many times.
The assertion that a fetus first has a life a few weeks earlier than what I described as the source of rights at birth is meaningless when one's notions of "life" and "rights" are arbitrary to begin with. In such a case there is literally nothing to say and nothing is. It isn't saved by calling it a "position" that one "stands by" but which requires no explanation because it is "opinion", then trying to dismiss any serious discussion rejecting it as nothing but opinion that is no better.
He doesn't even try to discuss what I wrote. He misrepresents it as a statement about when life begins, which he falsely equates with rights, and arbitrarily dismisses what he does not understand as mere opinion no better than his own. He even made the bizarre statement that if "you feel that you are deserving of no rights [it] would make your opinion invalid". That has nothing to do with what I wrote and makes no sense.
While refusing to discuss the content of this subject at all he becomes irate that anyone dares to claim to know something and try to explain it -- "like a Liberal" -- with a further accusation of "intentionally refusing to see that someone can reasonably have a differing position". No, it isn't a refusal on principle, he makes no sense at all. When someone shows a conceptual grasp of the discussion then I consider if he has an at least reasonable, even if perhaps mistaken, position. The "positions" eyecu2 demands be taken seriously simply because they are "opinion" aren't even coherent. The arbitrary does not become reasonable by cloaking it in a right to "opinion" against "Liberals" while denouncing all philosophical explanation as not "factual". Those who understood Atlas Shrugged know that.
I do not discuss what you wrote because you express an opinion that you claim to be a fact. This is the crux of my problem with your wordy responses. You repeatedly claim that your opinion is a fact and that as the basis of your position makes your entire position untenable, you cannot build a skyscraper on a faulty foundation. Well maybe you can, it just doesn't stand anywhere except in your own mind.
The assertion about a group of cells originated at your end. When you claimed that a group of cells has no rights. That was when I asked you for your opinion at what point does that group of cells gain those rights. You never answered the question, but implied that it was at birth. I asked what about a brief time period before and you again deflected.
You stated that the assertion that a right to life can be "reasonably argued as anytime between conception and self-actualization" is false. Is obviously in itself false since that is exactly what we are doing.
You sir repeatedly defeat yourself but I must give you credit for refusing to accept defeat.
Contrary to Eyecu2, I did not originate the assertion about man as nothing but a "group of cells". He did. He had claimed that a right to life can be "reasonably argued as anytime between conception and self-actualization", to which I responded with: "There is no justification for applying the concept of rights to cells and fetuses. They are potential human beings." He said "you yourself are nothing more than a group of cells", which is false and is no answer, as explained in detail.
He now argues "that the assertion that a right to life can be 'reasonably argued as anytime between conception and self-actualization is false' is obviously in itself false since that is exactly what we are doing." No that is not what "we" are doing. That is the kind of equivocal sophistry that makes one's ears wilt. Showing why "rights" of cells at "conception" is meaningless is not "reasonably arguing" for are about such phantom "rights". One can also not reasonably argue with someone over how many angels are on the head of a pin either, but can certainly explain why the argument itself is senseless and not "reasonable" without being accused of taking part in it to rationalize sanctioning it.
Eyecu2 said he has a "problem with wordy responses" as fact. He certainly does. Explanations require words, logically organized into sentences and paragraphs about distinct but related points, which most people know how to read and understand. (It's not spurts of grunts: "Here now fact, here now fact, here now belief,...) He is still refusing to address anything I wrote, instead continuing to bicker around the edges with false personal accusations while demanding conformity to a dogmatic philosophical skepticism that he says is why he won't discuss the substance. That false premise is indeed the "crux of his problem".
Philosophical principles certainly can and should be true and not just random "beliefs". They are about the most basic aspects of man's nature and his relation to the world, which are facts. They are fundamentally important. This is basic to Ayn Rand's ideas and everyone here should understand that. It is the attraction that brings most people here. Read Ayn Rand's Philosophy: Who Needs It (spoiler alert: it has lots of words logically related). It is not a "faulty foundation". Anti-philosophical demands for skepticism are not a "refutation".
Eyecu2 can remain a dogmatic philosophic Skeptic for the rest of his life if he wants to, but it won't stop the rest of us from learning and understanding, with or without his ankle-biting bickering and resentment of anyone who has the intellectual confidence to dare to find out and know. But that kind of knowledge as conceptual understanding isn't what he calls "tactics" and isn't "like Liberals" (his repetitious ultimate put-down) -- Liberals are typically Pragmatists, which has nothing in common with Ayn Rand's philosophy. Pragmatism with implicit or explicit altruist-collectivism has been the basis of progressivism for over a century. "Tactics", a resentful demand to not know while refusing to consider or discuss explanations, and denunciations as "Liberal" appear to be Eyecu2's entire focus, which is no answer to the left or for anything positive.
As to my disliking your written diarrhea.
It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book.
Friedrich Nietzsche
You are entittled to your opinion but remember it is yours.
Opinion-a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.; a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.; a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
You are expressing your Opinion, just as I have been doing. These personally held views are not facts. They are how we each feel about this matter, that is why I dismiss your tirades. You present them as if they are facts, when they are not. Were you to present them as what they are opinions, this would have been over from the first post. I have repeatedly said that I find your opinion reasonable, though it doesn't work for me. As these are personally held views I find no reason for you to keep demanding that I retreat from my position. This is why I have repeatedly compared your tactics to those of the modern day Liberal. So if you do not like my opinion of your opinion you can either quit talking to me or change your tactics, as you continue to reinforce my opinion of you.
Discussion with someone who claims that everything is mere "opinion" as an excuse in advance to evade it no matter what is said is obviously impossible, but exposing him for what he is is not. The attempt to on principle reduce everything to "opinion" with no more value than anything else is nihilistic, self-contradictory and dishonest. He wants his own "opinions", including his "opinion" denying objectivity on principle, to be taken seriously as a justification for trashing and undermining whatever he wants regardless of what it is, while he pretends that they too are only "opinion" with no requirement to justify his assertions. It's not an innocent mistake. Both this overt nihilism refusing to acknowledge the content of and reasons for what others say and his stream of personal insults are contrary to the purpose and standards of this forum and do not belong here.
You refuse to acknowledge that this is a discussion of opinions, that is the mistake that you are making here. Do you not understand the meaning of the word opinion? Or maybe you do not understand the meaning of philosophy. If you will go back and re-read my earlier posts, I included definitions of those two words.
As to me changing from calling your posts diarrhea to tirades. In the context of this discussion they are basically synonymous ie. mean the same thing.
His repetitious name-calling of "like Liberals", characteristically with not even an attempt to state why, is making "Liberals" look better all the time. If only.
Discussion with him proved impossible long ago. His dogmatic assertions systematically evade all previous content as he pretends nothing has been said. He thinks he can get away with this evasion by dismissing whatever he doesn't like as "opinion" not requiring any acknowledgment. His repetitiously arrogant and condescending accusations, insults and evasions are perverse. He appears to be a deliberately obnoxious provocateur trying to see how far he can suck people into his game, which was over long ago. No one should take this troll seriously. He should be removed from the forum.
AJAshinoff asked for opinions and I offered my opinion, which I have repeatedly called my opinion. You jumped in and tried to correct my opinion with your opinion that you call facts. You get bent out of shape when I call your opinion reasonable but not acceptable for myself.
I have not at any time participated in name calling. I have rightly labeled your actions as Liberal like, when you demand that your opinion is accepted as fact. I have correctly described your long tedious rants to get me to accept your opinions as fact, as being verbal diarrhea or a tirade. If you find this criticism odious might I suggest that you adjust your actions. One doesn't remove corrective punishment from an unruly child just because they complain of the punishment.
Understand that I have a right to my opinion and whether or not you like it I have that right. You too have a right to your opinion whether or not I agree with it, but you DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO FORCE YOUR OPINION ON ANYONE ELSE! If you do not like my opinion then quit talking to me.
Are Rights subject to an arbitrary number imposed to society? Or is the matter of comprehension involved? Or does simply being alive entitle someone to fundamental Rights to life, liberty and property?
A person dropped into an environment with no other human around would certainly have Rights, no?
More seriously, if a right is "a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context," then rights would not have any meaning in an environment that lacked a social context. You could not violate the rights of others (and vice versa) if there were no others to interact with.
I disagree in that any person regardless of social context has certain Rights that no society can grant or take away - Locke rightly stated (and I don't agree with all I read) those rights are Life, Liberty and Property. Do you need society to have Life? No. Liberty? Maybe. Property? Maybe.