Ayn Rand, Abortion, and Planned Parenthood.
Kevin Williamson of National Review did a follow-up to his piece which I posted here yesterday.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...
In this current piece, again on the Planned Parenthood atrocity (my word), he takes a shot at Planned Parenthhood apologists by referencing Rand
"Why not have a Fast Freddy’s Fetal Livers Emporium and Bait Shop in every town large enough to merit a Dairy Queen? If you are having some difficulty answering that question, perhaps you should, as some famous abortion-rights advocate once put it, check your premises."
Some people have taken this line to also be an implication of Rand.
Me, I'm not sure, there's a few things I disagree with Rand on, abortion being one of them.
But, what is Rand's view on abortion?
Here is a link the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...
I think the most relevant portion is this.
"A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."
In Rand's day, that's what abortion was.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I doubt very much that organ tissue can be harvested from a first trimester embryo.
I speculate that Planned Parenthood was harvesting exclusively from late term and even partial-birth abortions.
What Rand would say about this is also speculative, although we can infer from her words "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy..."
So, Objectivists, what say you?
Disclosure, my personal opinions on abortion - the human animal is a biological machine, as such it has core programming (instinctual drives). Maternal instincts are some of the most powerful any animal possesses, even stronger than Self-preservation or Species-reproduction. As such, I believe that when a woman has an abortion, regardless of the trimester, her maternal instinct kicks in at some level - automatic, unstoppable, irrevocable, unaffected by popular opinion of what abortion is supposed to be. As such, I believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she is doing deep and permanent psychological damage to herself. The existence of groups such as Silent No More lead me to suspect that my opinion is correct. What is the percentage of women who are psychologically damaged by an abortion? Who knows, and with today's Lysenko "scientists" I doubt there will be any unbiased research done. Regardless, until women who are considering an abortion first get counselling on the (what I believe) strong probability of psychological damage from the procedure, I can not be anything but against it.
This disclosure is also open for debate on this thread.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...
In this current piece, again on the Planned Parenthood atrocity (my word), he takes a shot at Planned Parenthhood apologists by referencing Rand
"Why not have a Fast Freddy’s Fetal Livers Emporium and Bait Shop in every town large enough to merit a Dairy Queen? If you are having some difficulty answering that question, perhaps you should, as some famous abortion-rights advocate once put it, check your premises."
Some people have taken this line to also be an implication of Rand.
Me, I'm not sure, there's a few things I disagree with Rand on, abortion being one of them.
But, what is Rand's view on abortion?
Here is a link the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...
I think the most relevant portion is this.
"A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."
In Rand's day, that's what abortion was.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I doubt very much that organ tissue can be harvested from a first trimester embryo.
I speculate that Planned Parenthood was harvesting exclusively from late term and even partial-birth abortions.
What Rand would say about this is also speculative, although we can infer from her words "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy..."
So, Objectivists, what say you?
Disclosure, my personal opinions on abortion - the human animal is a biological machine, as such it has core programming (instinctual drives). Maternal instincts are some of the most powerful any animal possesses, even stronger than Self-preservation or Species-reproduction. As such, I believe that when a woman has an abortion, regardless of the trimester, her maternal instinct kicks in at some level - automatic, unstoppable, irrevocable, unaffected by popular opinion of what abortion is supposed to be. As such, I believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she is doing deep and permanent psychological damage to herself. The existence of groups such as Silent No More lead me to suspect that my opinion is correct. What is the percentage of women who are psychologically damaged by an abortion? Who knows, and with today's Lysenko "scientists" I doubt there will be any unbiased research done. Regardless, until women who are considering an abortion first get counselling on the (what I believe) strong probability of psychological damage from the procedure, I can not be anything but against it.
This disclosure is also open for debate on this thread.
And later, when the situation was right for both women, I had two fantastic sons.
I was also raised by a widowed mother with five (5) sons and I directly experienced the turmoil, stress anxiety, internal and external conflicts of her life as well as the failures of three (3) of those boys.
Had I convinced those two women to have those children even with their concerns at the time, I'm not sure that wouldn't have done more damage to them than supporting them in their wishes to control when it was right for them.
When they felt comfortable enough in conversation to discuss it, each to a person claimed they felt an emotional sense of loss over it, some every day.
They did not claim regret: regret is partially reason based, each knew that they had made what was for them the correct decision.
My points are these:
1) Science is corrupted by politics. The only evidence I can trust in an area of science which politics has Lysenkoized is evidence which I have seen first-hand. My first-hand evidence has led me to my conclusion about probable side-effects to the abortion procedure.
2) I am not arguing on the morality/immorality of abortion per se. I am arguing over the morality/immorality of a medical procedure performed without full disclosure.
Let me frame it this way.
Suppose that you had to have surgery, either elective or critical, and that the procedure needed was presented to you as safe and routine.
Later, you develop a side-effect which everyone knew about but didn't bother to tell you because it wasn't politic.
How much would you sue for?
It's my memory that the two women I had my experience with were that both counseled prior to the procedure and given references to follow up services after the procedure. But both went through private clinics. I suppose that had either been on their own or in an oppositional environment, their experiences would have been much worse.
I do wonder though, why we don't hear of such law suits happening.
Are you telling me what I am feeling? Are you deciding for me that I will be existentially hurt by decisions I choose to make and so I should not be allowed to make them? Are you saying that I have to have counseling for something that women have been doing for thousands of years on their own (abort early term embryos) because you have decided it is damaging for me?
So...I can decide to join the military and go into combat and take the chance of getting killed...but I am not allowed to get the 'day after' shot to terminate a blastocyst?
Hear the outrage in my typety-typing. This is absurd. It hearkens back to Victorian doctors deciding that women did not actually have orgasms; we just thought that we did.
If you would like to ask women what they feel, that is different, but you have not only taken a stance that you will Inform us what we are feeling but that you will then make Rules that we have to follow in order to be magnanimously permitted to exercise free will.
Jan
Or did you misunderstand my argument?
Requiring abortion customers to see what the fetus looks like is a bullshit scare tactic religious people want to use because they've lost the simple secular argument. It is just like vegans wanting meat eaters to watch their cow die and be slaughtered before they eat steak, and it is right out of an Orwell novel.
No.
What I advocated is that the doctor performing the procedure inform the patient of all possible side-effects to the patient.
As I responded to jlc:
Start quote ---
If it is possible that you are getting hung up on the word "counselling", let me clarify.
I do not mean "counselling" as you see a psych health professional.
Rather "counselling" in it's sense of "advise" or "warning".
Meaning that the doctor should say, "Just so you know, x percent of women have experienced y degree of z side-effect."
And that's it.
I expect nothing less from any other medical professional.
And if I get less, it is fraud and malpractice.
End Quote ---
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
I'll tell you what though, all these angry Gulchers have really helped me to clarify my point!
I am not arguing on the morality/immorality of abortion per se.
I am arguing over the morality/immorality of a medical procedure performed without full disclosure.
Let me frame it this way.
Suppose that you had to have surgery, either elective or critical, and that the procedure needed was presented to you as safe and routine.
Later, you develop a side-effect which everyone knew about but didn't bother to tell you because it wasn't politic.
How much would you sue for?
And do you really think that you need to tell a man, "Having a vasectomy can alter your behavior or self image." ? I think that is pretty apparent to the prospective patient, even if he has not done any research on the statistics. Likewise, telling a woman, "Having an abortion might possibly have some psychological side effects." is probably unnecessary. This is not esoteric knowledge. (The women I have talked to who have had them did not experience this, but others probably did - that is part of the decision they chose to make, and not a subtle part, either.)
I think this falls into the category of, "Protecting the little stupid people from the repercussions of their own decisions by requiring them to jump through hoops in order to get society's approval." which is a lawmaking tendency that is strong in liberals. A woman should not need anyone's approval to get a legal abortion (per whatever the definition and limits of 'legal' are at the time).
Jan
I'm glad to see you think so little of me.
Jan
I do not mean "councelling" as you see a psych health professional.
Rather "councelling" in it's sense of "advise" or "warning".
Meaning that the doctor should say, "Just so you know, x percent of women have experinced y degree of z side-effect."
And that's it.
I expect nothing less from any other medical professional.
And if I get less, it is fraud and malpractice.
Either way, if you assumed the worst the or not, how little you think of me is noted.
In terms of counseling, I have no problem at all with helping people understand the options they have and the repercussions of those options. The medical profession can do better there! Bit I do NOT want this to come across as, "We know that if you decide to have an abortion you will regret this for the rest of your life. Now - do you really want to go through with this?"
A woman certainly has the right to this decision, at least to whatever degree is not defined as murder. If you do not agree with this, I shall cease to be baffled and become completely FLABBERGASTED!
Jan
I do not advocate the compulsory counselling of a woman considering an abortion (the misunderstanding here was my fault as I chose the incorrect word. I have been brushing up my Latin lately and the vocabulary word consilium [advice] is used a lot. I used it without considering its other, more compulsory, meaning)
I do not advocate any "moralistic advocacy" in the disclosure.
I only advocate the disclosure.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
When in my late twenties and early thirties I suffered acute adult acne.
It was f'ing horrible.
I went to a dermatologist and we tried a few different treatments.
Nothing worked.
As a last resort he suggested a drug, but he warned me that it is essentially a "nuclear bomb" [his words].
The drug had a considerable side-effect list.
The doctor suggested that I look over the list.
I decided to undergo the treatment.
While under the treatment, I became dangerously depressed and suicidal.
This was not a listed side-effect of the drug, so I chalked it up to a really bad break up that I had currently went through, not even thinking that I don't get suicidal over break-ups.
I finished the treatment and it successfully did away with my adult acne.
Years later I saw a TV ad for a Class-Action Ambulance Chaser.
They were assembling a lawsuit for people who were prescribed the drug which that dermatologist prescribed for me.
The suit claimed that the drug induced suicidal depression.
I can vouch my experience, you bet your ass it did, at least in me.
I did not join the lawsuit for a few reasons:
1) I don't like that type of lawyer
2) The dermatologist said "nuclear bomb", that's a pretty stiff warning
3) The treatment worked
4) (and most importantly) The side-effect was not known at the time.
Now, if that dermatologist had known about that side-effect, and withheld that information from me because of a fealty to a personal political ideology...
I just might have tried to sue his f'ing ass off.
I despised these decisions to deceive those women 'for their own good', and I agree that the patient should know everything that is available, in as reasonable a language as is possible, about their options and the ramifications of their choices.
And if a doctor fails to do this, then sue the bastard.
Jan, glad you got through the nuclear experience
What this "doctor" from PP is doing is Nazi (if that can used as an adjective).
Has anybody here gotten through that video? I couldn't do it. I got about half way through it and had to shut it down. Try it. See what you think.
Consider the following emotions:
disgust
hate/abhorrence
love
guilt
shame
confidence
outrage
The list could go on. Are the emotions themselves meaningful? Only insofar as we allow them to influence our decision-making. But that gut-reaction to something shouldn't be merely ignored. When we see someone pull a gun and threaten a store manager for money, the emotional reactions come from a completely different portion of the brain than that used for reasoning, so we can not conclude that such reactions are the result of logic. Rather, they are primal and act as inputs to the logical portion of the brain.
But the larger question is why almost universally normal people evaluate and react to the same stimuli emotionally. I would submit that in actuality, these emotions are indicative of the innate morality of the action being observed and allow us as humans to act instinctively without having to take the time necessary for cognitive evaluation.
I certainly did not deny emotions; but they are auto responses to one's values, not the drivers; not inputs to logic....
E.g. if you get angry when someone steals something from you, you are automatically responding to your value for the object stolen and your right to that object. How did the anger help you with any decision? Or present a better example.
"but they are auto responses to one's values, not the drivers; not inputs to logic."
You have that precisely backwards, which is what I was trying to point out. Values are derived from logic and experience because they are a comparison. Emotions are innate and visceral. You do not choose to become afraid of getting caught stealing. You may be able (with some training) to control that fear or channel it, but the fear is not a product of one's values - it exists preliminary to them!
Ask a combat veteran what the purpose of basic training is and how it compares with real battle. They will tell you that the purpose of their training is to help them deal with the eventuality of the emotions that will assault them the first time they are in the field for real. But every single one will say that despite all of that, the reality of the moment was such that despite those preparations they still encountered system shock. All will tell you that they were not prepared for that first time they were forced to take a life - even in self-defense - or the resulting emotions of such an event.
There is nothing innate in his subconscious; e.g. a child does not react differently to a dog or a wolf. Once he values and trusts dogs, his fear goes away.
In your last paragraph, you show that fear comes from knowing the danger in advance, not from some innate sense.
With respect to the child's reaction to the dog vs the wolf, what you are describing is not the origin of the emotion, but the conditioned response to the emotion.
"In your last paragraph, you show that fear comes from knowing the danger in advance, not from some innate sense."
Again, please consult a medical psychology journal. One can anticipate a danger, but until the actual situation presents itself, one can not predict with any degree of certainty the actual response that will take place. For combat training, what they are trying to do is prepare the soldier to deal with the emotions generated productively. They can not and do not control the emotion itself.
2 - there is no emotion there.
3 - If you value your life and it is threatened, fear is expected. You're right - that emotion is not controlled because it is an automatic reaction.
I do think that emotions, if properly trained, can serve as a 'short cut' to laborious reasoning. Such 'intuitions' can be valuable - you may not know 'why' that patch of woods look spooky, but you quietly creep backwards and thus avoid the sabretooth.
As a current example, I am obviously responding with a different set of emotions to the situations posed concerning, pregnancy, abortion and/or sale of the tissue and organs from aborted embryos. This thread is full of a spectrum of emotions, not a reflection of innate emotions.
Jan
As with a couple of her other definitions, most notably atheism, I disagree with her definition of when life begins. From what I have read of her opinions, it appears that her definition of the beginning of the rights of the unborn would start at the age of viability outside the womb at the earliest.
The cases of rape and incest can certainly be reasonably argued, and in those cases, the psychological scarring is coming from the perpetrator.
Rape and incest have nothing to do with it: If it is legit to end the life of a blob of protoplasm due to rape then it is OK to do it because it is the free choice of the woman to do so. And it is. We can discuss 'when'...but that depends on our arriving on a basic agreement of 'what'.
Jan
To summarize the whole reason why many have taken offense at the recent Planned Parenthood video, one should recall the opening line of "For a Few Dollars More", the best of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns. "Where life had no value, death, sometimes, had its price." In this case, life had so little value that even the price on something that is dead had a small value.
I have made a choice: riding without a helmet. If this should turn out to be a poor choice, then I can try to Undo the harm via a medical procedure.
To me, this differs from an early term abortion only in that I am undeniably valuable to me but a lump of protoplasm is of no value to me. So that makes an abortion a much easier choice - I am only getting rid of something that I do not want.
Jan
Look at your bicycle example from the following perspective. Let's say you need that medical procedure, and that requires my skill as a tissue engineer (actually my current field), what would you consider the scaffold I generate along with the adult stem cells that I harvest from you and then genetically reprogram to regenerate a body part custom made for you? Would that be undeniably valuable to you? I think so. To others in this forum, it would be worse than a lump of protoplasm to them; it would likely get rejected because your immunities are different than theirs.
It is a trash/treasure case.
Ultimately, autologous stem cells are going to provide the most benefit in most cases, because of the immunological problems with embryonic stem cells. Correcting genetic errors will be an exception until we get better at modifying the genome.
Jan
The 111 year old woman who was studied had all of her remaining lymphocytes of a single familial strain. This news should have received more attention than it did, as it is crucial to our understanding of aging.
Jan
Either we are talking about the destruction of a human life that we should protect, or it's no one's business but the mothers. We can't accept murder only if it's not her 'fault' -- if we believe it to be murder.
From a purely Objectivist standpoint, one should live with one's choices. In the case of rape or incest, the sexual act did not involve consent. Are you really going to argue on behalf of telling someone to live with the consequences of a decision that was made for them against their will?
Life simply cannot begin at or anywhere near conception; that creates an untenable contradiction of rights.
Do you, or do you not, care what Rand says? Why are you on this blog?
Please police your own threads, thank you.
Just curious as to the logic behind your statement.
Then there's the legal side, which essentially makes the mother God, by giving her the right to declare whether or not the life growing within her is human or just fetal tissue. A physical assault on a pregnant female that results in the death of a gestating fetus can result in a charge of murder against the assailant, but that same court system will not charge that same mother with homicide if she willingly and with "malice aforethought" decides that fetus should be terminated. No wonder this subject is a moral dilemma!
A mother has to have a right to her own body - a right given by her nature, not govt. or anyone else. An assault on her that results in the death of a fetus is an assault on her property - that's why it is a crime. But govt. does not have a right otherwise dictate what she can do with her body. I see no moral dilemma.
A complete, independent human being? How independent? Preemies at a very early stage of development can survive with the assistance of medical equipment, but do they qualify as human, by your definition?
What I'm trying to establish is that the conditions that support abortion are subjective and volatile. Too often we throw out our own subjective terminology, making the mistake of thinking others have the same understanding we do, when in fact their understanding of the same language is radically different. It's the variance in understanding that makes decisions about laws regarding this subject difficult.
in the mother's womb, it is not "independent" until removed with high likelihood or survival. The fetus is only a potential being until then, not an actual one. This is a key distinction because of the concept of rights that you and others here choose not to deal with.
Rand had a statement about rights, that had something to do with they were not an imposition on others to implement. We are all letting ourselves get pulled into the emotions of a human baby's existence and what some supernatural god might intend for us, instead of the rights of a human at a philosophical level. We must place our thoughts on this subject at the same level by realizing the effects of any regulation, rules, and laws imposed by this type of argument on the rest of the philosophy and of individual freedom and rights.
We must move this argument out of the realm of what's right and good and nice, back into the realm of what do we know with maybe a list of what we don't know yet and need or would like to know more about. But certainly out of the realm of beliefs based on what we think we know of what a god wants of us.
We are for the most part Objectivist on this site and state that there can be no contradictions, and if it appears that you've found one, you need to check your premises. All of this discussion centers on a pregnancy restricting the rights of a living human to direct their own activities, in favor of the rights of another potential human. If that is so, then the pregnant human is in a different class of humans with less rights than those of others. That can't be.
If, in my case above, we decide that the right of an individual to make choices has primacy over personal responsibility for the life of another human, then abortion on demand, at any stage of fetal development has to be the Objectivist position. Ayn Rand herself obviously would disagree with this absolutist position, since she drew the line at the first trimester.
My point in this issue of abortion is that it isn't as simple as drawing arbitrary lines so we can safely ignore the moral dilemma. If the Objectivist view is that moral contradictions can't exist, then Hobbes was right, at least for Objectivists: "Life is brutal, nasty, and short."
The problem we seem to be centering in on is man's intervention, rather than nature's or god's, for some. But that's kind of the definition of man, to use, manipulate, and even modify nature for his benefit in living and his life. If your argument is that man's intervention in when or if to have a child is wrong, then man's intervention to save a preemie, to implant a pacemaker, to go into space, to correct a birth disfigurement with surgery, and etc are all wrong as well.
In that case, then men have no rights. They must submit to nature's or god's will. That's not Objectivism. That reasoning puts us back into the caves hunting on the savanna with our bare hands, and praying to the gods of nature for our survival.
That being said, the relation between action and consequence can't be disregarded, or our actions do in fact become amoral, as Hobbes predicted. This has nothing to do with spiritual or natural forces, but with humans as social creatures. A disregard for life, demonstrated by abortion, is destructive in how it affects our actions in general.
I think that an Objectivist decision to act considers consequences of that act, based again on that rational thought and logical reasoning. And again on that level, we disagree on abortion being a disregard for life. I still see it as a decision based on the regard of a life that is self owned and realized compared to a potential life, with life in my mind as personhood, not just that of biology, thermodynamics, or any other branch of study.
What moral hierarchy? All human beings have equal rights and responsibilities. included is the right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body.
A fetus is not a necessary consequence of sex; a woman is not morally required to keep it.
When we have Uterine Replicators that can carry a blastocyst from conception to birth, then the rule of thumb of 'viable outside the human body' breaks down. Right now, while that rule is (I feel) ultimately doomed, it is the best we can do.
I would suggest that the binary of sentient/non-sentient may be too gross a granularity. I think that there may be subdivisions, with various levels of action appropriate at each point.
Jan
Jan
I define life by the simple biological measures that lead to your saying that "the zygote has life at conception". Sentience is a much trickier problem, as you correctly say.
I break this argument down as follows. If one chooses to mate with someone else, with or without "protection", one has to realize that there is a possible consequence of getting pregnant, however unlikely. If one does not want to live with consequence, one should not mate in the first place. If however, one does mate, to have an abortion as after-the-act birth control is inherently anti-life, a subject Ms. Rand wrote about in AS.
I will not force my views on this subject on others, however.
I agree with ProfChuck on the idea that "government should play no role in the abortion debate".
I will agree with you that sentient life does not begin at conception, but most life forms, particularly non-animals, are not sentient. Just because one has the ability to terminate a life like one might squash an insect does not mean that the insect was not alive. I am not going to argue that the unborn life form has rights, but that does not make it not alive.
Your abortion argument is not logical. You still cannot create a conflict of rights.
I never disagreed with what you said in the last paragraph.
When the relationship between the mother and fetus does actually bring harm to the mother, it becomes parasitic, and the morality changes accordingly.
That has never been the question.
I agree - and implied such - that those who do not sufficiently think through their decision as well as their moral principles are more likely to be scared.
Wikipedia's characteristics of life are fairly complete.
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
This is one of the harder items for fetuses to do.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells — the basic units of life.
This starts happening after the first few weeks of pregnancy. By the time a woman knows she is pregnant, one can detect the fetus's heart beating (18 days).
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.[49]
This starts to happen within the first few weeks of gestation.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
This happens almost immediately after conception.
Adaptation: The ability to change over time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity, diet, and external factors.
This happens almost immediately within the womb.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion; for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism), and chemotaxis.
Certainly fetuses respond to stimuli, even in the first few days of gestation.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.[54][55] or "with an error rate below the sustainability threshold."[55]
Of these, reproduction can be considered on the cellular level (in which case early-stage fetuses are capable of reproduction) or at the organismic level (in which case one should not have rights until puberty).
Of these, response to stimuli and adaptation are the two that come close to the definition of sentience, but they are an incomplete definition for sentience.
Metabolism: "From a metabolic perspective, i.e., cellular activity such as respiration, life is fairly easy to define. A cell is either functioning or it isn't (ignoring "dormant" cells and exotic organised chemical processes for now). This has profound consequences for the definition of "life" because taking this view there is, in a very real sense, no one point when life can be said to begin. Both the sperm cells and the egg cells are alive in the same sense as any other single or multicellular organism. Indeed, cellular life - and the metabolic processes performed by this - can continue to occur long after an organism can said to be dead. It's said that fresh (uncooked) sausages contain enough live cells on order to easily clone the pig it came from. Hence, from this cellular metabolic point of view, life begins when the gametes are formed from loose chemicals and ends when every cell in the body has ceased to be active."
It's a little like libertarians not understanding Rand's morality, thus making many errors in politics.
You clearly have not grasped fundamentals.
It matters that she is consistent within her philosophy. Her def. of life is well-developed, and no life by that def. is eliminated.
If you are talking about any existence, we eliminate many things every day; that is not a philosophical issue.
Ms. Rand's definition of life is quite acceptable for determining rights (or lack thereof) for the unborn, but it is quite inadequate from a tissue engineering standpoint. Ms. Rand did not have to consider that, because tissue engineering did not exist in her lifetime. That is no longer the case. It is for just this reason that my students are required to take a bioethics class.
We have no disagreement regarding the last 2/3 of what you said. Ms. Rand's definitions and philosophy are quite self-consistent.
Tissue engineering def.s are not philosophical; she would not have defined life your way if there was such a thing.
Yes to the last Q, but irrelevant to the moral Q.
As the driver for this thread was the cheapening of life via the inexpensive sale of embryos (although unstated, ultimately to R & D types in tissue engineering), my point is relevant to a different part of the thread than yours. My question will among the bigger ethical debates over the next generation.
You are correct in saying that Ms. Rand would not have defined life in the way that I did, or in the way that the rest of society does. It is precisely this reason as to why I have described Ms. Rand as "clever". In both her definitions of atheism and life, she has constructed her own definitions in such a way that are self-consistent. While the question of atheism is inherently unknowable, the question of life is not. Life has the characteristics that I described earlier. Sentience is not a requirement for a life, although adaptation to surroundings is.
If you developed a complete philosophy that would be compatible with your def. of life, then it would have to be subjectivist in nature.
Opinions are individual judgments not based on facts. Value judgments can most certainly be based on facts and objective philosophical principles.
I may value a specific movie subjectively or objectively, the latter based on phil. principles.
Many scientists agree that their "facts" need to conform to reality and reason as defined in philosophy. Other details within their fields have nothing to do with phil.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/When_doe...
When does life begin? is a question that seems simple and straightforward, but really isn't.
Defining life to begin with is hardly straightforward, but for the purposes of this question we mean "human life," and more specifically we mean the life of an individual human being, as "life" in general only began once, and has existed continuously since the dawn of the first cellular organisms billions of years ago. Hence, this is more a question of "when does personhood begin?" for a particular person, rather than any definition regarding abiogenesis. This question is crucial to a number of complex ethical debates regarding abortion, premature births and, at the other end of the spectrum, brain-dead patients. It is almost as complicated as defining life itself. Ultimately, it is not a question of science, but of morality, politics, and ethics.
Ecology/Technology
Further past this point, a baby is born at the natural time. However, there is still one hurdle to jump in defining unique "life" and that is the nature of sentience, or self-awareness. Experiments on very young children show that they are certainly not as self-aware as adult humans - indeed in some cases other primates can beat them on the tests administered. The fact is that all humans are born somewhat prematurely, while the young of other animals can drop out of the womb or hatch from an egg and be up and running in minutes, human infants need far longer care. This is due to a developed human cranium being too large to be held by the mother and be given birth to safely, this problem essentially forces the mother to give birth at nine months when in an ideal universe it should be longer. So defining life based on self awareness, you're not really alive until sometime after your first birthday.
The Conclusion is that the question may well be meaningless, but can only be answered subjectively on the individual level and one definition can't be forced on anyone from a legal or moral point.
Far more so than a human embryo, what I deal with is "potential life", and yet it has value if cultivated properly. I am not saying that what I deal with should have "rights", but I am arguing for the value of what I do.
This is a case where premises have to be carefully separated and analyzed. It may be an 'elephant' even though someone may have the tail and another the trunk.
It's not a question of whether philosophy can do without science. A rational philosophy lays the foundation for rational (sadly redundant) science and is its most tenacious defender.
That said, I can only go by what I have experienced myself - and that is Objectivist.
If I am correct (which is neither provable nor disprovable with our current politicized science), women should be made aware of that probability so that they have all of the information possible to make their decision.
Why?
I've seen women on TV say they now regret an abortion. I know a woman who still mourns a miscarried child lost two decades ago.
I'm sure there are plenty of skanks who will say "Oops!" at a missed period and beeline to PP on our dollar like it's all about nothing.
I was referring to moocher skanks. Wasn't that obvious?
If you want to be a plain old skank, fine. Just make sure you and any sex partner pays for the contraception.
Also telling PP to go to hell with their assembly line "war on babies" abortions would be appreciated but not demanded by Libertarian me.
Come more to the point next time. I may have something on my mind. Like my yard on a hot day.
I want to First Amendment voice my opinion is all.
Libertarians do not boss people around.
Correctly-thinking Christians don't want to do that either.
Prison inmates used to call me boss but that was just a job,
Oh, another thing, I thought YOU were a guy who called himself a skank up until now.
Why not? I've seen the b-word directed at guys.
After college, I started out as a nosy reporter and the sensitive snout of an allosaur is very similar to the T-Rex, who came later.
I can stand a no comment if you like. Me be a big dino.
If it makes you feel any better, I thought Robbie was a girl.almost up until the time he faded away.
Why?
I was very fond of a female Robbie a good long time ago.
You're not offended, so I'll unhide.
But as our country is now, neither can ever be satisfied, and the reality is that the conservatives want the government to coercively deny that procedure. That is statism, and we all lose.
It's hard to make that case unless at least fertilization occurs.
Or are you just trying to equate abortion with birth control to minimize the moral aspect?
If by "the pill" you means something like RU486, they most definitely care about it.
One a celebration of human life, the other the ending of a potential life for reasons only the mother should have to be satisfied with.
Jan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeLrq...
One is not morally obliged to keep the fetus - if that is where you are going.
It was a great morning...
Keep the little drippy-nosed suckers away from me: prevent conception, with abortion as a back up measure.
Jan, not a mom
I do not argue that most people consider children to be parasites (my parents loved children and would have liked a huge family), but I think of Alien whenever I consider an embryo, living inside me, sucking out my life. Blechch! And when they are born - they they ruin your life for the next couple of decades...until you can get rid of them.
But this admittedly extreme view does give me a good perspective from which to respond when people say things like, "all women want children". Uh...over here!...No, I don't.
Jan
Jan
But I do ask the waiter not to seat me near any wailing infants.
I was doing some additional research on what SCIENCE determines life to be and when it begins and while there are varying differences there are also some extremely consistent identifiers.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/lif...
http://academic.wsc.edu/mathsci/hamme...
According to Hickman, Roberts, and Larson (1997), any living organism will meet the following seven basic properties of life:
1) Chemical uniqueness. Living systems demonstrate a unique and
complex molecular organization.
2) Complexity and hierarchical organization. Living systems
demonstrate a unique and complex hierarchical organization.
3) Reproduction. Living systems can reproduce themselves.
4) Possession of a genetic program. A genetic program provides fidelity
of inheritance.
5) Metabolism. Living organisms maintain themselves by obtaining
nutrients from their environments.
6) Development. All organisms pass through a characteristic life cycle.
7) Environmental reaction. All animals interact with their environment.
The fertilized egg, from the moment of conception, meets each of the properties that have been found to determine if an organism can be classified as living. Based on this definition, life begins at conception.
http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/...
1
a : the quality that distinguishes a vital and functional being from a dead body
b : a principle or force that is considered to underlie the distinctive quality of animate beings
c : an organismic state characterized by capacity for metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction
"C" a fertilized fetus meets this requirement the second the cells divide.
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/s...
Living things tend to be complex and highly organized. They have the ability to take in energy from the environment and transform it for growth and reproduction. Organisms tend toward homeostasis: an equilibrium of parameters that define their internal environment. Living creatures respond, and their stimulation fosters a reaction-like motion, recoil, and in advanced forms, learning. Life is reproductive, as some kind of copying is needed for evolution to take hold through a population's mutation and natural selection. To grow and develop, living creatures need foremost to be consumers, since growth includes changing biomass, creating new individuals, and the shedding of waste.
Every scientific journal that defines "life" indicates that the second the egg and sperm come together and divide, they possess DNA and a complex mechanism which separates it from "protoplasm" which is specifically defined as:
However...Protoplasm itself within its own definition uses "LIFE".
Oxford Dictionary:
The colourless material comprising the living part of a cell, including the cytoplasm, nucleus, and other organelles.
So going back to Ayn Rand saying a protoplasm has no rights indicates that life has no rights.
So in the end I guess the discussion will go on for eternity and will be completely based on each persons specific set of morals, beliefs, and convictions.
and its host may eliminate it at will, according to current law,
"until birth." . if I were a female, I could not do it. -- j
.
Religionists do in fact denounce the "morning after pill".
Jan
It seems that the instinct to reproduce takes into account the survival rate and population pressure.
Jan
I do agree, in the end game your checks will work, but socialism that will likely come from supporting the less productive portion as we see all around us.
Jan
I fundamentally see the issue as a beginning of life question, and the lines form up quite pretty well along religion and science. Arguing that at conception is the beginning of a human life is simply technically foolish, there isn't even a nerve cell yet. Arguing that after a child is 1 yr old is not is just as silly. Somewhere in the middle is the only sensible position. Presently this time is set at 28 weeks, and yes at that point a fetus looks like a tiny person and has all its organs.
One can argue about the timing of when it life begins, but it is clearly not when the embryo is 16 cells. In my mind the fetus is fully dependent on its mother to survive, and the burden is on its mother to nourish, protect and care for this fetus. Sometimes this burden is accepted to be carried partly accepted by the father and extended family in support of the mother during pregnancy and delivery, and in caring for the child after; however, the burden and responsibility is fundamentally with the mother. In addition, childbirth is quite its own burden. Therefore, very simply as the one responsible for all this nourishment, inconvenience, pain, cost etc, there can be no question among people believing in freedom of where the decision for the maintenance of the fetus lies. In capitalistic terms, the mother pays, therefore the mother decides. Now, this breaks down if the life of another is in question...sort of, but that is the beginning of life debate. Therefore, the mother should have freedom to decide what to do with her own resources, without restriction, until the fetus is a human life. This is clear and simple.
Another argument I see here is the psychological trauma/damage to the mother by making this decision. I have a big problem with this argument. First, again it is the mother making a decision she must live with. Does one of us really support the concept that society/government should protect a mother from making a bad decision? Really?
Separately, is this negative "trauma" a concern about other people's opinion or one's own? Clearly there are both. The internal ones are the only ones of substance. Other people's opinions are noise.
Lastly, this entire concept of physiological trauma is not based on logical thought in the mother. Clearly illogical thought happens, much of the time, but among us we would seek legislative action to control this? Really?
I may be the most vocal male supporter of abortion rights on our site, so as Kent said to the giant Jiffypop in Real Genius, "Lemme have it!".
Jan
http://grants.nih.gov/stem_cells/regi...
I could develop my own stem cell line and apply for inclusion in the registry, but that is beyond the financial wherewithal of almost anyone who wouldn't suckle up to the State Science Institute for funding.
It is convenient to combine perceived abuses, particularly one with so much media power, to support but a single argument that is lost on its own.
As for "perceived abuses", I know of two non-USA competitors who are buying aborted fetuses for their tissue engineering development. If I were to do so, even if I thought it morally acceptable, I would quickly be in jail. Moreover, if I were to use aborted fetuses, it would have cut > 1 year of development time and more than $100 K. That is money I have to consider as part of my capital investment when doing ROI calculations that my foreign competition doesn't.
Use of the fetal tissue and taxes to pay for them are unrelated to whether abortion is morally inappropriate and should be illegal.
A completely separate issue is whether there should be legislation limiting the use of fetal tissue. Personally, if productive use can be found for this otherwise waste material, I have no issue with its use. This is a separate argument.
I understood you the first time, but the combination of these two issues is like considering a theif's use of stolen items in the decision regarding the legality of theft. Irrelevant!
Rush Limbaugh has correctly stated that liberalism is a series of easy choices. If society makes such choices even easier by subsidizing them, then that requires my unwilling participation. If people choose abortions and pay the full amount, I will tell them politely that I disagree with their decision, but at least I have not had to provide sanction to it.
BTW- PP has a policy of not allowing the mother to see the baby (fetus, child, blob of cells, whatever) when they perform an ultrasound to determine the fetus's position. I totally disagree with this. If we must let each women decide for herself, at least she should be fully informed.
I disagree with just about everything you've said, (I do agree that there should be some point after conception where 'life' should be defined. Logically I would use the presence of brain activity.)
HOWEVER, I do appreciate that you have spelled out you views reasonably and diplomatically. Wish I could say the same of others...
Not sure how you and I differ on the emotional trauma, but sounds like we do agree to some definition of the beginning of life, and on the concept of a child's individual rights. It seems we may differ on the transition from the mother's responsibility and rights to the child's rights. If you agree with this conceptual transition (which is very cool), then the next would be a discussion of the technical details of the transition.
I have a problem with simply using brain activity as a defining moment this does not indicate conscienceless, or any kind of higher thinking; therefore, it is not different than using the heartbeat, which happens even earlier in the development of the fetus. I can't see assigning the beginning of human life to something present in all animals, and even animal fetuses.
Sometimes I'm not so diplomatic, and I regret it when speaking with people who are, or when I inspire reasonable people to inflammation.
The religionists don't care. They have no understanding of why we have rights and what the requirements are. They have a mystical notion of the source of rights and misuse the concept as a floating abstraction, contradicting the rights that human beings do have.
In addition, what makes that unique combination more precious than all the ones we decided not to allow to proceed (e.g. condoms, etc).
Unique, yes. A meaningful, sentient life to be taken, no.
The problem is that there is a continuum of existence for that individual collection of genetic material through adulthood. Even after birth it does not qualify as an independent rational member of society until years of effort have been placed into protecting and nurturing it.
There are two points in this development which stand out. The first is when the organism can continue to survive, with assistance, if taken from the mother's womb, although that process can be significantly invasive as to the mother's rights. The second is at birth when someone else can take over care without imposing a medical procedure on the mother.
I'm not sure when it's a meaningful sentient life.
I consider the assertion that abortion is murder by most people is laughable, when there are gobs of starving actual walking, functioning humans dieing every day. Unless the people arguing against it have exhausted their resources supporting these other people first, they are simply hypocrites.
Certainly the uniqueness concept has intellectual merit in evaluation, but it is a practical red herring.
The seminal question is, when does life begin? If not at conception, when?
2. An Obj.ist has to accept the morality of abortion - an issue of rights.
3. For those late-term abortion cases (which are fairly small in number): if the fetus would be breathing/alive upon removal, then one could claim it to be "human." But like Rand said, that is not where morality lies (on the extremes).
4. I don't have a problem with the use of fetus parts in research. But the mother of the fetus should have a say in that use and be compensated in some way (e.g. for hospital bills).
I do not actually agree with these policies, but I can see that they are currently necessary in order to totally divorce the decision from taint of medical scandal.
Jan
The "scandals" could be prevented.
Why?
"You even contradict yourself by saying you don't know how many might be so damaged."
How?
1) In my own dealings with women who have had abortions I have noticed a pattern of "emotional loss"
2) I have noticed that abortion survivor support groups have formed for women claiming similar distress.
3) Abortion science is politicized (Lysenkoized) and therefore suspect.
4) Any study done on the subject is therefore also suspect.
5) Having to choose between suspect expert evidence and experiential evidence, I have chosen experiential.
6) Expert evidence says that women claiming distress are minimal in number or politically motivated and therefore their claim can be ignored.
7) Doctors performing any procedure do so out of expert evidence.
8) Not informing a patient of a possible side-effect for any medical procedure has a legal term: malpractice.
I am not arguing for or against abortion.
I am arguing against what I believe to be malpractice.
You are now free to ignore and flame at will.
ALL abortions are an invasive medical procedure. This is a fact.
Other than abortions any invasive medical procedure MUST follow specific guidelines by law, which includes to the patient full complete disclosure of all possible side effects or risks.
Why is abortion not treated as ANY other medical procedure? Convenience and politics.
Since an abortion IS a medical procedure, and an invasive one at that and either local anesthesia or IV sedation is used, this eve further dictates that full disclosure of every possible risk should be clearly outlined to the patient as in any other medical procedure.
Roughly 47,000 women die every year FROM abortion complications. Another reason to enforce full disclosure and treat as any other invasive medical procedure.
I am not advocating for or against abortion here, simply pointing out some facts, that indicate that abortions SHOULD be treated live real medical procedures, not like a McDonalds drive through at some non-medical facility where the women can get REAL medical care.
Anything short of that IS malpractice.
Sure, they should be fully informed - and should take all precautions....
In my opinion, the maternal instinct does not give a damn what society's popular opinion (strongly pro-abortion, mind you) happens to be.
Your opinion will no doubt be different from mine.
You are talking about guilt.
I am talking about trauma.
The guilt only adds to the trauma for some.
2. Objectivism deals with reality and accepts the tenet that we have only our perception with which to evaluate reality. Since our perceptions are subject to change with more information, NO subject is "settled". There is always room for the adjustment of theory to account for new information.
3. This is your opinion, but obviously many differ from you. What you are saying is that until the blueprint is complete, that it doesn't matter that it is a blueprint at all regardless if the process is underway. What you are in fact doing is denying the potentiality of value in an unfinished product.
There is no "new info" to change the moral principle.
"Potentiality" does not equate to "actuality" when it comes to rights.
The warning required is: "If you adhere to religious pronouncements and don't understand what you are doing you will experience emotional problems. You are psychologically damaged."
What about the rights of the fetus?
Are they granted upon exit from the birth canal? No. In our law, fetuses have property rights. It is considered child endangerment to take drugs while pregnant, and, if a pregnant woman is killed, also killing the fetus, it is usually charged as double murder.
If you still don't think a fetus is a person, I ask you to pick up a high school biology textbook or What to Expect When You're Expecting.
No, fetus does not have rights - period. The woman has rights to her body, thus the laws you reference.
Don't let emotions cloud your reasoning.
Laws associated with damage to a fetus are morally based on the mother's rights and choice to have a baby.
Science has not determined that fetuses are human beings with human rights like property rights. You are confusing religious dogma with science.
"We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities. The most successful educational approach to the Negro is through a religious appeal. We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."
- Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.
fetus "thrashed around" during the procedure. If it
can thrash around and fight, I guess it must be a
separate entity. That does not mean that it is an
actually separate human being from the moment
of conception, however. I think that it should
make a difference whether it has brain waves
yet, or not.
So, I am not an "-ist", but this blog is valuable to me.
Jan
2) I share common views with Ms. Rand on >> 90% of her points, but do not consider myself an Objectivist. The life question we are discussing on this thread is the first or second most serious disagreement I have with Ms. Rand.
3) In the cases I disagree with Ms. Rand, it is on her definitions. Her conclusions are consistent with her definitions, but in a couple of cases, she has chosen definitions that are not standard. In those cases, I have chosen to reject her premises, and consequently do not consider myself an Objectivist.
4) Although I consider myself a non-Objectivist, I find my views and values more often reflected here than any other similar venue, and thus I return value for value in an effort to live a non-contradictory life.
5) When someone lives in a way that I consider contradictory, I will point it out, but not force it upon them. If one chooses to live a contradiction, then that contradiction will be its own punishment. If one chooses to live a life of non-contradiction, as I presume everyone in the Gulch does, then I am glad you are on the right path.
6) Specifically with regard to this post, as a tissue engineer, the definition of life is a critical one. When I grow part of (or eventually all of) an organ from one's own adult stem cells, the product that I have created will not have sentience, yet it must be alive when I implant it back into one of my patients. These patients value the value that I and my colleagues have created. To you, it may be an unviable tissue mass, but to me and my patients, it is the opportunity for a significantly improved quality of life. Your (and Ms. Rand's) definition of life cheapens the value of what I do, and consequently, I must defend my definition. In addition to the questionable morality, what was in the Planned Parenthood video has the potential to seriously lower the value on what I do. Less than or equal to $100 for a liver is a lot less than I will demand for my services! When I and others have to follow reasonable rules set by a society regarding the way that I conduct my tissue engineering, and then someone else gets to flaunt those rules and completely undercut my sales point, then you can be damned sure that I will be upset!
Nothing in Ayn Rand "cheapens" any science.
You stated, "If I were to create my own definitions, you and everyone else would immediately say, 'Who the heck are you to define terms in a way that is different from everyone else?" That is not true, and you cannot in logic "stand by" a misrepresentation of what you imagine someone else would say. Definitions are true or false in accordance with whether or not they correctly specify a concept in terms of essentials, not whether or not they are "different from everyone else".
The clown who voted this down has his own problems.
I just thought this blog was for Obj.ists or those aspiring to be so.
There's actually been a lot of discussion recently about that.
The decision the Admins made was that Producer membership requires advocacy of AR/AS/OBJ and that regular membership is open to all (until they become an obvious troll of course).
And the troll bar is set very, very high by the admins, sometimes very much to the chagrin of some of the members.
I would suggest that you look into and consider a producer membership. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f...
It's really not that expensive, the fee is meant as a minimal "money where your mouth is" commitment.
One of the perks is access to the very underused "Gulch Lounge" category.
If your concern is having more Objectivist themed conversation with more Objectivist minded people, that would be the category to hang out in.
Although, as you can see from this thread, even we producers knock heads from time to time.
BTW, don't take my sarcasm too personally.
People here know me for my infamous "Two Strike Policy"
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
When I'm serious, I start calling strikes.
I hope to see you on the producer side.
Rick (Eudaimonia)
I do, however, think it should be mandatory that those who would perform a medical procedure disclose the risk.
That's why we have all those fast talking voice actors at the end of each commercial for each new pharm-wonder-drug... could cause spontaneous-combustion, permanent blindness, and zombification...
If it is an acceptable action to take, why should we make it more unpleasant that it already is?
First legally and according to statute "What is Life and When does it begin?"
Second is human life more valuable than animal life?
16 U.S. Code § 668 - Bald and golden eagles
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/te...
Owning, moving, possessing, damaging "eggs" from a bird is punishable by "$10,000 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both: "
42 CFR 71.52 - Turtles, tortoises, and terrapins.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/...
Now if the Federal Government is defining an egg, which is NOT a live bird and is not fully formed as requiring protection, I would think that by any reasonable definition, that a human embryo which is the point at which two eggs begin to grow and subdivide and metabolize, would and should be entitled to protection under the law as well.
How can one define a bird "egg" as alive, and not a Human fetus? Or at the least how can one dictate that an "egg" should have legal protection and a human fetus not?
Nothing above even remotely hints at religion only the legal standpoint of where life is considered to deserve protection.
Neither holds water. The government has not asserted that the eggs are life.
Capturing and sterilizing an endangered species would also land you in jail, but not so for a vasectomy or "tube tying" in a human. Does this also mean animals are more important than humans? No.
No one thinks abortion is a positive thing to be encouraged. Perhaps there is a real secular argument against it (the above is not one). However, I question how many people have not made a decision on abortion and subsequently seek secular arguments against it.
We have: murder - lot of work to do here.
We have:the woman will feel bad after - Really, Gulchers want to make something illegal because the decision maker will regret the decision?
We have - You have to live with your bad decisions. Right. You had sex, too bad so sad. Cut it out. You bought a pretty, but unreliable car. You have to keep it until we agree you've suffered adequately.
We have: allowing abortion encourages irresponsible social behaviors - Clearly not if people feel so bad after them.
The only reasonable secular argument against abortion is the rights of the child, and that depends on the child being an individual human when the abortion occurs. Since the cost and burden is on the mother who would seek an abortion, the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit her freedoms. Demonstrate the fetus is a human in any manner also relevant in demonstrating humans are different than animals. Simple, and I bet you can't.
Suppose the fetus were a human life. Then we'd have a tough problem. How much sacrifice could we demand of mothers to protect that life? Could we deman expecting mothers take a break for high-risk jobs and activites. If a doctor says they should be on bed-rest, could we use force to make sure she complies?
I actually do think a fetus has rights, but I don't see how we can put its rights ahead of the mother's. I hope one day there is technology to extract an unwanted fetus and incubate it with no harm to the mother or fetus.
I actually think it would be sadder to pull the plug on a truly self-aware machine than to abort an unaware fetus. One of these two can recognize its own end. The self-aware machine can probably even pass the Turing Test. The fetus cannot even respond.
If your hope comes true, I add the hope that we also have the wisdom to do this ONLY when there is a nurturing, willing, interested party that will responsibly care for the eventual child, and that the procedure is paid for by this party. Otherwise, you just multiplied a problem we already have.
Fetus grows to a human life, therefore should also be protected from harm by humans.
It is a classic case of contradiction of law. Animal egg is life and protected, Human is not life and not protected.
I thought what I wrote above was pretty clear...even placed the legal statutes.
We "want" to define life as an egg when it pertains to something convenient, or emotionally appealing, like saving the eagles.
BUT we do not want the same definition to apply to people because we all love the thought of abortion and that the woman should have the right to rip something out of her body if she chooses and we conveniently do not call that life.
The point I am making is that there is no consistency at all, either life begins at conception or it does not.
Or does life begin prior to conception such as a bird egg but not a human. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways and still claim A=A
What I really care about is individual rights and freedom of humans. AR said something about rights, on the order of rights do not place an imposition on others to implement them.
I also care that no laws get passed that effect the lives of existing humans in any way, shape, or form. I care that a lot (nearly all) of existing laws get repealed or cancelled. And I really care that the government 'Keep It's Damn Laws Off Human Bodies' and human, free market interactions.
And that if you wish for more laws that further restrict the freedom of any human in any way, that you go somewhere where you can do that, but not where I'm at. That is statism, pure and simple.
Let the birds fend for themselves or for people that care about them to spend their own money and time raising them, and if dead fetal tissue can be utilized for research that stands the chance of improving the future lives of humanity I'm all for it. If you don't do that, it get's thrown into a furnace somewhere.
So far we have seen some justification to alter the definition of life based on risk of extinction, but that has no bearing on the root definitions in reality.
I am not advocating one way over another just spurring some thought.
Life is Life PERIOD.
Non-Life is NON-life PERIOD
A=A
If one is defined as life at a certain point so also is all other life or non-life. Period.
Although I was using the term LEGAL Protection.
If Egg = Legal Protection for Animal
Human is an animal
Human Egg/Fetus = Legal Protection.
There is NO manipulation, this is simple A=A. Perhaps this concept is to simple for some. Or perhaps not "convenient."
Not being a Galt's Gulch Online Producer also does not make one a moocher or a looter.
Galt's Gulch Online Producers are however expected to hold themselves to a higher standard and not berate, belittle, or attempt to pressure others into becoming Gulch Producers. This would actually be considered conduct unbecoming a Gulch Producer.
Let's raise the bar.
Thanks,
Scott
With all due respect your statement "Nor does it prove one's level of knowledge and/or understanding of any particular subject." I completely disagree. In the "About section" of this forum, an Objectivist who DOES have understanding should be self-motivated to action.
No Free Lunch
Value for Value
All core concepts to one who understands and has knowledge. Wisdom is the proper application of knowledge.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/about
"Producers are members of the Galt's Gulch community who have read Atlas Shrugged, are advocates of Ayn Rand's ideas, and understand that there is no free lunch. They understand that running this site costs money. They understand that the value they get from this site deserves a fair value-for-value exchange."
Value for value. I joined the Gulch because I was motivated by Ayn Rand after I read Atlas Shrugged, then The Fountainhead, then a few of her other lesser known works.
To self-identify as an Objectivist, one MUST view things from a value for value proposition.
Being flagged "Producer" while certainly not required to participate, indicates a specific level of "value-for-value" acknowledgement.
One who self identifies as an Objectivist is forced by these principals to ask themselves do I find "value" here? If I do then I should be motivated to as this site points out in its "About" section, know "there is no free lunch."
I joined this site, and remained a guest for a view months to determine if I found "value." I was self-motivated as were so many others who found value.
I did find a great deal of value so I made the choice being motivated by Objectivist principals knowledge of those principals, and the wisdom to ACT on those principals, I acted on that value and subscribe.
Some who contend they are the epitome of Objectivism, and do not find value, should not be taking harsh tones with others on this site who DO find value here and express that value with a subscription, thus being flagged "producer" whereby I have taken the product of my labor, to pay for the product of another person's labor, i.e. this forum.
To be honest, the value I paid voluntarily is less than smoker pay to suck down carcinogens on a regular basis, making this forum a significant value vs. the amount requested.
To quote directly from Ayn Rand.
The Virtue of Selfishness
"Since a value is that which one acts to gain and/or keep, and the amount of possible action is limited by the duration of one’s lifespan, it is a part of one’s life that one invests in everything one values. The years, months, days or hours of thought, of interest, of action devoted to a value are the currency with which one pays for the enjoyment one receives from it."
I guess one must ask what currency. Well since money is the tool by which men freely trade with one another and establish value, and as the "About" section points out there is NO free lunch. A person who holds Objectivism dear would most certainly ACT by providing that value, currency in the form of a subscription, else that person must not hold those values as dearly as proclaimed from the roof-top.
Quantity of a species does not change the definition, it only changes the justification of the action.
If an Eagle egg is alive and deserved protection under the law, then so must a human fetus be considered alive and receive protection under the law, else the law is inconsistent and needs to include human fetus.
If a human Fetus is NOT alive therefore deserves no protection under the law because it has not been born, i.e. exited the womb, then an Eagle egg must also be considered not alive because it has not hatched, and deserves no protection under the law.
See no avocation for one over the other, only bringing to light the massive inconsistency.
And it's no more inconsistent than a cop getting away with killing an unarmed man while a citizen would go to prison. It's all anti-humanism and anti-rights.
Human egg and sperm are not protected even though they support life (not = life).
Why? Because one is in danger of extinction (or was when the law was drafted). The other is far more in danger of extincting.
So A does not Equal A then.
I said if the Law in the USA deems the egg of an eagle something to be preserved then the "eggs" of humans also should receive at least the same protection under the law.
The quantity or rarity of a species is not relevant.
Either the egg of a bird is of the same value as a human or visa versa, and both deserve protection under the law, or neither, since the egg is not life therefore should not be protected at all.
What would the free market have done in the place of the statist solution?
Wait, I get it now. You don't really agree with humans interacting in a free market in a value for value interchange do you?
Your issue on this post is blatantly anti-abortion. You just need to go ahead and state it and fully accept that you're trying to get the state to act for you against those that don't believe as you. And further that doing so is the very definition of statism leading to more state control of humans by taking control of a woman's body.
That's one of my issues with conservatives that talk small government and less government interference out of one side of their mouths, while out of the other side trying to get bigger government and more interference. That, I maintain is an inconsistency.
I have also not in this thread discussed anything about big or small government.
I have also not endorsing any controls.
I have only been bringing to light significant inconsistencies.
Zenphamy please point out in this thread ANYPLACE I said to pass a law protecting anything.
I am pointing out that under the premise of A=A, you cannot have it both ways. I am pointing out that people use convenience to justify their view, and ignore that they often turn it into A<>A.
If you or anyone claims that the egg of an eagle needs saved for any reason other than it is life, then that definition also passes to all living creatures. A=A.
If the egg of an Eagle is not alive then no law should be there protecting it period, and then you are being consistent in that the human embryo is also not alive.
But NOPLACE in this thread did I state any anti abortion view, or any pro abortion view, not any bigger government or more control government, just pointing out major inconsistencies that need rectified so A=A.
You begin your comment above: "Ok if A=A then lt's (sic) look at this from a current secular perspective only."
Then: "First legally and according to statute "What is Life and When does it begin?""
But you fail to list any 'secular" or any 'legal' reference. In Wikipedia, which is certainly secular (meaning non-religious), examining several viewpoints from science, it's first determined that what's really being asked is 'What is Personhood' and 'When Does It Begin', because life has too many definitions and attempts to define, and can't be consolidated down to one answer. The Conclusion is:
"Further past this point, a baby is born at the natural time. However, there is still one hurdle to jump in defining unique "life" and that is the nature of sentience, or self-awareness. Experiments on very young children show that they are certainly not as self-aware as adult humans - indeed in some cases other primates can beat them on the tests administered. The fact is that all humans are born somewhat prematurely, while the young of other animals can drop out of the womb or hatch from an egg and be up and running in minutes, human infants need far longer care. This is due to a developed human cranium being too large to be held by the mother and be given birth to safely, this problem essentially forces the mother to give birth at nine months when in an ideal universe it should be longer. So defining life based on self awareness, you're not really alive until sometime after your first birthday."
And in Conclusion: When discussing the philosophical and/or ethical issues surrounding the start of life, the desire for science to provide a clear cut human/non human boundary is very understandable. We need to be able to define this because it is important in our laws and our understandings. However, even from the brief descriptions given above, it is clear that there is no simple answer that science can give. It may well be that reality doesn't have an answer for us, and that "when does life begin?" is, in fact, a meaningless question.
Scott Gilbert concludes based on these premises that:
"The entity created by fertilization is indeed a human embryo, and it has the potential to be human adult. Whether these facts are enough to accord it personhood is a question influenced by opinion, philosophy and theology, rather than by science."
Indeed, the potential for human life can begin very early, but it is personhood that is the sticking point. The question is very much whether the two are equal and therefore happen at the same point. Leaving the answer in the hands of philosophy and opinion however makes the distinction between "life" and "non-life" purely subjective and the answer will be different for everyone. This is the most important fact to bear in mind, particularly when discussing legalities - subjective thoughts cannot and should not be forced upon everyone fairly."
Then you try to equate human life to the embryonic, in the egg phase of an eagle and even amphibians, attempting to take the examples of legal protection of animals threatened at the extinction level, and compare that to a human life. Then you go on to attempt comparisons of the protections afforded the eagle egg (by neglecting to also include that the protection is also afforded to the nest or parts of the nest of the eagle as well as other parts). It seems that your argument should be directed at the uterus since that's the most equivalent to the egg shell of a bird or amphibian and the nest since it's purpose and design is to hold the egg, the embryo, and the baby chick until it reaches eagle-hood.
Not only is your argument fallacious, but your attempt to dissemble is pretty easily seen through. And that's only an analysis of your first and second sentences. I only ask that you be honest with us, nothing more.
I did not state my personal view as in the discussion it was not relevant.
I was simply pointing out 2 particular Government statues (there are a lot more) that assign legal protection to the eggs of animals.
Perhaps I assumed you knew that these statutes were driven by the left and those conservationists and activists that also support planned parenthood.
My point is not as complicated as you are making it, and perhaps I touched a nerve in pointing this inconsistency out.
If the left/liberal/conservationist/activist, through legal statute define the unhatched egg of a bird worthy of protection, and does not afford the human the same thing THAT is inconsistent and not A=A.
That is all I was pointing out.
Again you cannot have it both ways.
I "I", was not defining when life begins nor was I in any way indicating any such thing other than via the logic of the Federal Statute that is in existence and is FACT, (the legal statute) that was argued by liberal conservationist activists.
It's not that your 'inconsistency' in law touched a nerve in me, it's that an avowed conservative on this site advocating for greater control by government over our lives and larger growth is abhorrent to me and only serves to drive me further away from involvement with this society of fools and panderers.
Where are the men of the mind, the individuals that will stand up for themselves and their rights, those with the moral certainty to stand in the face of socialism, collectivism, and statism and say NO, I am a free man.
individuals that will stand up for
themselves ....."
Maybe they were aborted.
Maybe you should just use a "less crunchy method" to formulate your responses to me.
My answer is that if the human race were in danger of extinction, any viable blastocyst would be worth a whole lot more than 10K!
Jan
The definition does not change, only the justification. So again, life begins when has nothing to do with how many of a species is in existence.
Jan
If at any point you determine for any reason that the egg needs protected because it's potential for life, then the same passes to the human fetus.
Quantity of a speciies does not change what the definition of life is or should be.
If Egg of eagle is alive, so is embryo of human.
If Egg of Eagle is not alive neither is human.
If the fertilized bird egg is "alive, then so is the embryo of a human.
If the fertlized egg is not alive then neither is human.
A=A.
A=A.
The moral standard for Objectivist ethics is supposed to be "man's life." Hence one does not allow murder. But: that also means one should not allow any practice that desensitizes a person and makes him more likely to commit murder. And that is what abortion allows--and the later in the term, the stronger the effect.
If we do not allow harvesting an adult or a born child for parts, how can we allow that from an unborn child? The second practice, if society allows it, desensitizes the public so they might allow, even demand, the first. How long, then, before "You ought to be broken up for your organs, and maybe then you would be useful to the world" becomes a common insult? And how long after that before that becomes an allowable sentence of a court?
A few things to think about, in light of the Planned Parenthood revelations.
Many people, including the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade are guided by the viability argument -- that once the fetus could live outside the mother (note even a baby can't live independently of human effort) it becomes protected.
It was known at the time of the decision and continues to be true that its a moving target. Eventually at any point after fertilization technology will be able to bring it to term so we will have some interesting debates.
Whatever may happen after an abortion in terms of viability does not negate the woman's right to abortion.
I am sure that all of us have read the following by Ms. Rand.
"Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,” you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person."
I do not need to start with the assumption that a fetus is a human being to come to the conclusion that abortion is immoral by Ms. Rand's own standards. Abortion, except in the cases of rape or incest, constitutes an attempt to escape from the consequences of one's own actions. It is a statement, and more importantly an action, that says "that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict 'It is.'"
Moreover, when it "wipes out the wiper", the wiper should and will have psychological scarring, because abortion is a form of blanking out.
This business of saying one must live with one's own decisions is clearly true, but is says nothing about the following actions. I may choose to break something I can easily replace. Am I then compelled to live without that thing forever? Clearly not. This statement is similarly irrelevant to limiting abortion.
As separate from logical argument as this may be, I wonder what the correlation between religious beliefs and positions on abortion are, even among us. I think the data would be telling and identify an motive to back into the conclusion with logic.
This is rationalistic sophistry intended to support such absurdities as demanding to "not mate in the first place if one does not want a pregnancy". It is an excuse for the thousand year old Catholic dogma that the only purpose of sex is to procreate and that sex for human pleasure alone is evil. This irrational, anti human dogma is all the more offensive cloaked in context dropping parroting of Ayn Rand's own principles.
That kind of mentality and irrationality cannot possibly end up as anything but the equivalent of "calling your legislatures".
Methinks one protests too quickly with respect to consequences. How many of the misdecisions of today are rectified by technology, yet are not rejected because they do not challenge religious "norms"?
Car repair, cardiac health, typos (retype the page, use white out, print over)...but somehow, this decision cannot be overcome by technology...why?
I foresee a circular argument coming
You conclusion does not follow: you totally ignore the concept of rights. You incorrectly assume that a woman has sex knowing she will get pregnant, and thus loses her right to her body by having an abortion. Absurd.
"Alive" here means nothing.
The analogy was not as you described it, but it is not worth further explanation.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...
http://pss.sagepub.com/content/20/3/2...
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/...
Bartholow. B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 532-539.
"Hundreds of studies have shown that exposure to media violence increases aggression. Media violence is believed to increase aggression, at least in part, by desensitizing viewers to the effects of real violence. Media violence initially produces fear, disgust, and other avoidance-related motivational states. Repeated exposure to media violence, however, reduces its psychological impact and eventually produces aggressive approach-related motivational states, theoretically leading to stable increases in aggression."
My threshold for using governmental force to ban something has to be a lot higher than violent media increases aggression. Your aggression has to rise to the level of initiating the use of force before we can do that.
The first problem regards the ethics of how the livers were generated.
A good primer on stem cells is at
http://biochem158.stanford.edu/14%20S...
Particularly focus on slide 13. The reference to Yamanaka at the bottom of the page should have ended the stem cell debate, at least from a moral standpoint because it is no longer necessary to harvest embryos to obtain pluripotent stem cells.
The second problem with the generation of tissues is the immune response. If one reprograms one's own stem cells, the immune response is nonexistent. If one uses a different source of stem cells, the immunogenic responses range from minimal to outright rejection, with most responses being significant but not showstoppers.
The third problem is the long-term cancer risk. Because such tissues are not native to that human being, this is a significant biological control problem. In 20-50 years, biomedical engineers will understand all of the necessary control variables and their levels, but right now we (and I have moved into this field over the last several years) have a teenager's understanding of such tissue engineering. Sometimes we get it right. Other times there are some serious accidents, just like teenagers in cars. Fortunately the vast majority of these "accidents" happen long before clinical trials.
Tissue from later stage pregnancies are preferred for some studies, but certainly not most.
The transition from "embryonic" (read pluripotent) to "adult" stem cells (not pluripotent) happens much quicker than previously thought. A heart starts beating in the 3rd week of pregnancy.
I do nothing that I or anyone else would consider ethically compromised in this respect.