I think that I have figured out the problem here. You do not seem to understand the meaning of the word "opinion."

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.

"...Now that we’re a little more familiar with the fundamentals of the brain, let’s take a look at brain development in children. Between conception and age three, a child’s brain undergoes an impressive amount of change. At birth, it already has about all of the neurons it will ever have. It doubles in size in the first year, and by age three it has reached 80 percent of its adult volume.8,9,10..."
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.

There is an enormous and fundamental difference in biological context between before and after birth. Having human genes and the potential for thought and reason after becoming a person does not make a fetus a person with rights. It also ignores the rights of the woman.

"Diarrhea"? Your personal attacks are disgusting. You turn serious discussion into a food fight. You continue to refuse to discuss content in favor of personal bickering, insults and resentment. Your constant demands for philosophical skepticism are not proof that anyone is wrong and not an excuse to refuse discussion. Yes we have facts and the capacity for conceptual explanation. No it is not "diarrhea". No we are not "like Liberals", which you repeatedly throw out as if it were the ultimate argument. We are classical liberals in the tradition of American individualism and the Enlightenment emphasis of reason. Your posts are dogmatically anti-intellectual on principle, with bitter personal resentment towards anyone with intellectual confidence. It's a shame that you cannot equal the intelligence of your own career to be able to follow, let alone participate in, the discussion here.

I never called you a Liberal. I said that you argue like a Liberal. For example you are repeatedly proven wrong and still demand that you are right. You pass off opinions as facts and then demand that others accept your opinions as facts.

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.

I did not "refuse to answer" anything. EyeCu2 didn't get the answers he wants, ignores them, and misrepresents them with bizarre fragments of his own. Anyone can read what I have explained in detail (not "seemed to") about the source of rights at birth which he ignores; I won't repeat it here. His bickering over "brief time periods" is irrelevant, as already explained. Birth is a fundamental event that is itself a process necessarily over a finite duration of time. The "moment of birth", like the "moment of conception", is an abstraction focusing on essentials while ignoring the length of the brief finite duration as unimportant to the concept for most purposes of its use, where it is not denied but left implicit. The explanation of the essential difference between before and after birth for the capacity to have rights does not depend on "but what about this second, or that half-second,...". Thinking in essentials, not irrelevancies employed for rationalistic nihilism trying to undermine concepts, is not "deflecting".

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.

You specifically refuse to actually answer any direct questions and repeatedly demand that your opinion is a fact. Philosophy by definition is an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs. I accept that you believe these things. I just refuse to accept that your beliefs are fact. I do point out that your tactics are similar to those employed by the Liberals here in America. If you find this insulting might I suggest that you adjust your methods.

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.

Eyecu2 continues to avoid discussing content of the philosophical subject matter, replacing it with endless demands to be taken seriously for an "opinion" while insisting that no explanation is anything but opinion and no better than his own assertions. He claims my "logic is faulty" for daring to know that I have knowledge, not mere opinion, which he denounces as "Liberal". He confuses a (previous) expectation that he would read explanations (for comprehension) with "demanding" to be taken seriously for discussing facts, i.e., philosophical knowledge about the world. He confuses conceptual explanation with "unceasingly badgering" him with a "hope of concession".

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.

Show something verifiable as sceintific fact instead of repeatedly expressing your opinion and calling it fact. I freely admit that I have expressed my opinion. You are the one who took issue with me doing so. Seems hypocritical of you from where I sit but again that is my opinion.

Makes me think that if I said that the sun will come up tomorrow that you would contridict me.

No one is demanding or badgering that you do anything. You are very defensive. If you don't want to understand explanations it's your loss. Others gain from it. Believe what you want, but don't expect to go unchallenged for the sake of your "opinion". Everything is not just a matter of opinion, no better than whatever you feel like asserting. If you don't understand that I wonder why you are here.

Your logic is faulty, since you express your opinion and demand that it is fact. That is why I
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.

Anyone can read the posts and see that it is much more than "opinion". You can't in logic dismiss anything you don't like by arbitrarily relegating it to "opinion" no better than anything else..

Your posts are filled with false accusations, rampant personal hostility, package deals, and arbitrary religious thinking employing floating abstractions and rationalism. Reality has not "refuted" my arguments. Please take your personal feuding somewhere else. It does not belong here.

There are no conflicting rights. The conflict arises only out of arbitrary assertions. The "only argument" is not over the fact that "the mother must live for the infant to survive birth". The mother has the right to her own life regardless of a fetus; she has not duty to live to sacrifice for a birth.

That is your opinion.

There is no such thing as "Life" as a proper name distinguished from "life". The concept of "life" is an ordinary noun. You are using a non-existent distinction to repeatedly misrepresent what I wrote. I did not say that life begins at birth and I didn't say anything about whatever you think "Life" means as something different. The discussion is about when an embryo as a potential human being becomes in fact a person with rights and their extent at that point. A person is an entity, not nothing more than a mere group of cells.

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.

This is an Ayn Rand forum, not "leftist crap" from "idiots" and not for religious revisionist history. It is not a place for your crude personal insults. Militant religionists are systematically trolling comments to 'downvote' out of personal hostility in their religious war. They should be removed from the forum.

I've heard that leftist crap before, that David Barton is a fraud. Obviously, he isn't, and YOU are the idiot!

Land ownership and business ownership are rather arbitrary requirements for voting. Would I be entitled to vote if I bought one share of stock in a Fortune 500 company, or a small plot of land in the middle of nowhere?

In the beginning of our republic, voting was restricted to Property Owners and Vets of European descent, and the property owned by property owners included slaves. Thus our "collective slide into oblivion" was already baked into the cake by the time our republic was launched. And some of our worst Presidents were elected well before voting by women was widespread.

[shakes head] If they are false alternatives, it is because the original case you bring up is constructed from false alternatives and all I do is simply expose them for what they are: arguments founded on fallacies.

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.

So you have eaten a child or a fetus, then? If not, your argument is specious and ridiculous. If you want to try to convince yourself that an unborn child is not human, that's on your head.

Your research on Wikipedia slightly missed the mark of my point, while proving my position. Since it states, "As a consequence, there is, at the present time, no worldwide, uniform gestational age that defines viability for fetuses." It proves my position that this is a matter of opinion. I did however take the position that Life begins when a fetus becomes viable outside utero without direct life support and it is the without direct life support that makes the difference for me.

I well understand the topic that we are discussing, but I do not care that you seem unable to accept the fact that this is a matter of opinion. The fact is that that group of cells is alive from the instant of conception until death at some hopefully distant time in the future. However, being alive is not Life in any but the strictest scientific sense.

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.