Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

whYNOT

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1495
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Everything posted by whYNOT

  1. As per usual, Eiuol, you apply the common, societal, normative standards to my use of "moral". So saying that I "demonize" a woman's - or any person's - choice by some societal standards or by religious morals. This is "social metaphysics" which I repudiate. Have you heard of the ethics of rational selfishness? You can't accept that an advanced fetus can be killed "amorally" - as I have always called the act - because it doesn't "possess rights"? That's completely untrue and circular reasoning. "Life" is the base of rights. Rights don't themselves determine whether an act is moral or immoral. One can act within one's rights and commit a moral breach(rationally-selfishly, to repeat). I brought this up a few times and it was ignored. (That I suggested too that, as the result, a viable fetus should in future have the same rights an infant has, is something else). Always, you pick the lowest hanging branch. "Yuckiness" is the most minor part of what I have put out here, plainly referring to the "crude" procedure being one motive to put many women off late abortion. "Rational reasons"? What you have are *practical reasons*. E.g. , "my husband left so now I want a last-minute abortion. And adoption? Why bother?" Which definitely tells one she didn't place much rationally-selfish value in having her child, to begin with - i.e. she had amoral ( in terms of rational -selfishness, again) premises. Easy. You can't and won't accept the basic premise of an individual, viable, human entity as being "life" in its own right and worthy of continuing to live - you will never accept any other premise or consequence. Fine. Say so and let's move on.
  2. No one shares my interest in finding the objective - not subjective nor intrinsicist - solution to abortion, so I'll end here. Thanks and be well, guys! See you another time and place.
  3. "What evidence ..." Do you know anything about women and pregnancy? have you asked many? Why do you need evidence for what only concerns one's thoughts and evaluations based on universally- known facts at large, and Objectivist principles? Have you looked into the mechanics of a late fetal extraction? It is quite simple. Studying embryology will tell you little more than you need. And I said "...even if they are ambivalent about ..." I made no "assumption". A query, if assumed the fetus is a living, viable being, can it be a/immoral to kill it? If yes to both, then would you not at least criticize (heh, "demonize") the only person who HAS the power and made the choice to do so? Or would you "conform to" her wishes? Why would a woman get a moral pass to kill, which you wouldn't allow a man? Answer these questions, please. They are the crux of my argument which you avoid with sophistry. See the polls and make the obvious inferences. A large majority of women, about half pro-choice, think late abortion is wrong. The arguments for and against late abortion, fetal viability, etc. *may* make some "ambivalent" -- but even if uncertain they (rationally) plainly don't take the chance of ending the life of an advanced fetus - in such a crude and probably painful (for the fetus) manner, especially - later to perhaps suffer guilt and remorse. And just because they were slow making up their minds.. Tell them it is their reproductive right, and they won't do it. Tell them the law doesn't forbid it, they still won't. And you supposedly support women.... but they and men are the same species of rational animal! To show respect for women I suggest treat them by the same standard of rational (and emotional) beings they are, no less than men. I think Eiuol you're implicitly agitating for a Leftist, SJW, and hard-core feminist 'principle' that few women would ever act upon but find it unethical/distasteful/non-self-respecting - and, being politically pragmatic, it is a non-principle, no guide to moral action. Thank god most women know better. As the one I linked to, wrote: "These abortion laws aren't what pro-choice is supposed to mean". Quite.
  4. "waiting a while" - what, 36 weeks, or 24 or 20? Is 22 weeks not long enough to make a serious, far-reaching choice? If it is not, and she's unsure, than one would think it's best she doesn't go ahead with the pregnancy. Does she want to risk eventually having to kill her viable fetus, an existing human, while making up her mind? As basics, I think to intend having a child needs 1. conviction 2. fitting circumstances. If either is lacking, I don't think the choice is rational. The stats speak for themselves - if you've not heard several mothers and other women make clear their repugnance, as I recounted. The majority of women will not, pro-choicers, included, venture into the third trimester to have an abortion. Even if they are ambivalent about the biological existence of a human life, and have (somehow) been oblivious to the fetus' size and weight and of its sporadic movements which they personally sense, it appears the 'procedure' itself, finally puts them off. A fetus is not "a clump of cells".The in situ crushing of a skull and evacuation of the remains has become too well-known and unforgettable. A woman's 'natural instinct', so to speak, is never to kill what they perhaps, earlier, valued. Her "instinct" is entirely rational and moral. [So, btw, making her difficult choice to abort before that "bright line" point is fully deserving of one's sympathy]. The real moral blame should go to the medical practitioners who supply the service, who conduct the late/full term abortion. They know exactly what is involved, so can't evade the actuality. And they are ethically bound by the Hippocratic Oath (with all the provisos of foremost acting for their patient's life and health, of course). They would have to face criminal charges.
  5. "Ignorance and disregard". I have nothing but high regard for all the women (80 to 95+ percent, depending on which polls) who take their bodies, lives and pregnancy, her embryo/fetus or motherhood, with the gravity this deserves and who choose to take immediate steps for an abortion when they have unwanted, accidental pregnancies. This I've made clear. That great majority of women, very apparently, have such high consciousness, self-esteem and respect for a potential life, (and the responsibility of raising a child) to allow for arbitrary actions on this. I am on their side. Otoh, it is all of you who've argued in support of (let's say) the more irresponsible, irrational woman, the small minority, who leaves her decision late, then - amorally chooses to have her fetus killed, rather than even to get it adopted. In other words, it seems you don't expect very much from women. (The soft bigotry of low expectations, as it's called). Then - who has the greater respect for women, you or I?
  6. "Misogynist" may not be a common PC term, yet. Just like "---phobe", one sees this used most often in order to (a). assert for oneself the moral high ground (b). substitute for reasoning (c). "shame'' one's opponent into silence. You must be aware of how much this ploy is used, particularly from the modern Left. And you claim - I - "...introduced whatever PC slogan..."? What? I have not used derogatory "slogans" of any type to anyone. It seems odd to explain on this forum what is a rationally-selfish "moral disapproval". "Values", supreme value, sacrifice of values, and so on. Also, I made a passing remark about late abortion "foreign" to us (the early pro-choice liberals, in this country) and that you believe is my whole argument?! Did I say we "disapproved" of it? I did not. I intimated that it was the furthest thing from our minds. Getting a legal abortion, and soon, was all that counted. Sure. If known back then, I have no doubt it would have been rejected as immoral/unconscionable, as it is largely today by women (as well-expressed by the pro-choice writer above).. I think you should not put words in my mouth, I will be doubting that you "participate in good faith". .. "It still isn't an entity that bears any rights". And why not, in future? When an "objective" - not arbitrary, not subjective, not religious, law comes into place, that can change. I believe it will. All western nations have similar laws, but all lack an objective basis. I repeat simply. Is it ethical to kill a human? Not of course a human zygote or embryo -- but a fully-formed fetus? One with vital life-signs and viability? If that is answered, then the laws and rights will follow. If it's immoral, then the fetus gets the same protection of law a baby would. Then you'd see late-abortion doctors arrested and charged with infanticide..
  7. You're covering up. Anyone can easily deduce your simplistic thinking: A. "This poster thinks late abortions are wrong". B. "Women have abortions". C. "Yes! I have found this poster is anti-woman. A misogynist!" D. "Therefore his views on abortion are prejudiced against women, and so I can expose him!" A psychologizer, who has added nothing of value on this topic. You not only are illogical, not only believe that PC slogans are meaningful, you have lowdown motives in trying, for lack of any reasoned argument, to impugn my character, especially lifting from a thread in which I was offering my honest advice to someone from past experiences.
  8. If you had followed so far, you would be clearer that this fetus is - objectively - an autonomous life, with all attributes and properties of a human, one you are being so casual about aborting. "The Objectivist argument against late-term abortions would be that the fetus is a potential life not an actual one". Huh? I think you meant "for". Leaving that, and what you're transposing and taking out of context, is Rand on ~potential vs. actual~ but "essentially, this concerns the first three months" of pregnancy. NOT the last three months. She talks of a "clump of cells". Remember? She didn't mention late-term, except saying that after the first trimester, the subject is "debatable". The argument now, is that this fetus IS actual. So your "Objectivist argument" doesn't hold water for third trimester abortion, and going by her philosophy it is doubtful she would "embrace it" - as someone said here . "Up to her". What if that woman's husband "suddenly" leaves her one day before, or at the last second, on the day of its birth, what then? What a terrible inconvenience. Of course, she'd have every cause to abort it! After all, a baby has zero value to her, now. This action indicates sacrificial immorality and cynical unconcern for her life and any life - but you'd not judge it "negatively". Maybe it is equally "up to her" for a mother to murder her baby just *after* its birth? After all, if her husband cheats on/abandons her, she is morally justified, by your standards. Oh, but then she'd be charged by the law. A baby which, by your reckoning, wasn't a human life one minute or one day earlier, suddenly and magically becomes "life" by emerging from the womb. Work that out. Therefore your argument is irrelevant, amoral and ultimately, circular. Circling back to what has been endlessly repeated: What is human life (and when) - and *should* it be protected? Self-evidently, if it has become a viable, independent, surviving human body/life, as everybody beyond doubt knows and can see it has (whenever a fetus has had to be removed early) - at THAT stage of third trimester development, whether in or out of its mother's uterus, it is identified as a human being. Of course, if one insists as you and, quite likely most late-abortionists do, that a fetus is an integral "part" of a mother, i.e. like any one of her vital organs - heart, kidneys, stomach, or her limbs - THEN, isn't that nice, one may dismiss a grown fetus with easier conscience, and late-abort it without guilt or a rational morality. In that case, again, everyone will repeat - "this is the mother's body and her life, she can choose what she wants with it...etc, etc", justifying the choice of, er, ~ removal ~ of this so-called, "part" of her. Except, sorry to break it to you, the fetus as being "her body" or "her life" is a biological and metaphysical falsity, and the excuses made break down to justification or evasion. Putting "a self-sustaining and self-generating process" into this context - a fetus possesses its OWN physicality and ACTS towards its OWN life. Its existence depends on its 'environment', of course, as do all living things, and babies and adults, but it is "an end in itself". Since fertilization, it was never an integral "part" of anything or anyone else, physically (later, also consciously). Rand's preamble to rational *selfishness* covers this ground, and obviously with good reason..
  9. I don't get why an article hasn't merit - because- it appeared in such and such a publication. If something has truth, it doesn't matter where you find it. (Even on CNN). Speaking objectively, one first "isolates" a thing from its background, assesses it and returns it to context afterwards. Not - judging a book by its cover...etc. Also, how one assesses an artwork, regardless of its artist, pedigree, reputation, history, etc. She delivers some facts and makes a fairly impassioned value-judgment. Does one question the facts, sure. Can one disagree with her opinion? Fine. But sensationalist, I don't think. "These abortion laws aren't what pro-choice is supposed to mean". (McCaughy) I resonated with her opinion because in all 4-5 decades of being staunchly pro-abortion (in a once socially repressive society) because it liberated women (and men) - it never dawned on me and the others, female, mostly, that anyone would choose, or desire to, demand a late abortion. This was a foreign idea to all of us then. You needed a ~legal~ abortion: You had it done - the sooner the better. (Then I came across Rand who memorably presented the *moral* choice of abortion).
  10. Hell, this guy must work for CNN. Muckraking into past records attempting to dig up dirt on one's character. What the infantile, concrete-bound and dirty Leftist media excel at. Not a single rational argument the whole thread, just irrelevant outbursts and nit-picking. If you think fetuses should be given life and can make a comprehensive ~ Objectivist ~ argument for it, like I have, you are anti-women, misogynist and probably a rapist. PC labels serve to block out reality, which some don't want their small world-view to be disturbed by. But Objectivism and 'political correctness' is a contradiction in terms like O'ism and leftism, in general.
  11. One abstracts entities in the course of being conceptual, like it or not. Another thing, such political correctness - virtue signaling is definitely at odds with Objectivism. Have I called you a fetophobe and baby killer? I don't need this advice, thank you very much.
  12. This is: ignore the message and shoot the messenger. What passes your test for being the _correct_ publication to read?
  13. A superficial change which proves my point.. Transfer a fetus-baby from one secure 'container' to another (womb to incubator), provide equivalent nutrition, and it lives and survives. What does this tell us, but that this has - already - become an autonomous being and a life that is "self"- sustaining". (And if anyone trivially remarks, it cannot be "autonomous", a baby can't survive without that nutrition and shelter - ha, well - neither can you). What is so intrinsically important about "anatomically connected to the mother" and "her blood for nutrients and oxygen"? Ideally, yes, of course - and in all normal circumstances that's the case until birth. But let's not make the mother-connection a mystical one. Central is grasping the meaning of "life, a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action."
  14. Ethics, then laws and rights. First comes first, to build an objective, moral case against late-abortion. One has the right to do all kinds of things with, or to, one's own body. One's possible morality or irrationality, aside - if they don't rebound on others' freedom to act, so good and fine. And here, for a "separate, distinct living body" - albeit a fetus (which is capable of survival) - I argue, should it not receive the same protection of rights to life a newborn infant enjoys? The identical "freedom to act" which one doesn't interfere with, for all others? Respecting those rights would be "an ethical concern", while not a code of ethics, itself.
  15. Apart from making a mash-up of my argument .... A medical article? Why? This is largely philosophical, concerning the nature of life. The basics are well known, not needing medical professionals' advice. Can a fetus be removed pre-term from its mother (henceforth, a baby), have the umbilical cut, and with the right treatment, drips, incubation and so on, be kept living? This is commonly known. In this state is the baby, or not, a "separate, distinct, living body"? One which will thrive, mostly, to grow to a child. But, say, one day earlier going by what you intimate, the fetus/baby was not a distinct body and life. Why? what's essentially changed, except its environment and nutrition methods? This is a nice demonstration and validation, if it's needed, of "a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action". With emphases on "self". The action which applies to every living "organism". Keep supplying the necessities and life continues. The mother supplied her fetus the essentials, given by nature, but they can be and are replaced manually, 'man made' (with premature/emergency delivery). A fetus ~has to~ have available these nutrients 'surrounding' it, comparable to a plant and water and sunlight - or 'connected' to it - with mammals. But its body and life and growth are distinct entities and actions, from its mother's body. "An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival". The Virtue of Selfishness.
  16. https://nypost.com/2019/02/13/these-abortion-laws-arent-what-pro-choice-is-supposed-to-mean/ A pro-choicer speaks up.
  17. You hearked on this before, and seem most concerned about fetal pain, yourself. The probability of a sentient fetus feeling pain - I have inferred from reports online - has been what has strongly turned off many people about late-abortions, apparently including some of the abortion practitioners themselves, and I pointed it out a few times in passing. As I did above. I personally think it is a horrible operation to conduct, emphasized by a doctor friend of mine, (an atheist too, who is fervently against late interventions for moral and medical reasons)--but of the humane aspect I've brought in relatively little. That you believe this is the mainstay of my argument shows you haven't given it much attention. In the end, the polled opinions, even emotions, of a majority/whatever of people doesn't hold sway, either. The argument, simply: By any objective and biological formulation of the nature of life, a third trimester pregnancy has arrived at the point of *two bodies* and *two lives* at stake. Therefore, no longer is it a matter of "My individual rights and freedom of action to do what I please with my body". Now there is another body to take into account. So, a conundrum - can one find an ethical solution which neither leans to the conservative's intrinsic value, nor to the secularist's subjective value, concerning a late fetus? Which is not trespassing on individual rights? There always can be an objective answer (not that it will, or has to, please everyone). "Confused"? No.
  18. https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/06/17/why-postmoderns-train-not-educate-activists-open-college-transcript/
  19. You don't get it still. "...demonstrating that such a fetus would be engaging in anything like a baby can and does do". Oh well. And, the question is not about rights, per se, that is a red herring. The question is first ethical - as always, on the basis of man's life - and legal: Is one permitted to kill another human being? This certainly depends on the objective definitions/explication of 'human' and 'life'; but depending also on the physical development stage of the fetus, number one being its "brain regions". I think the notion that advocates of late term abortion prefer to keep, is that there was nothing significant "in there" a week or two before birth, only "meat and biological matter", and (somehow) a 'rational' human immediately afterwards. Is this not an evasion of the evident actuality of 'gradualism' - i.e. constant human growth, previous to and continuing after birth? All to fit the expediency of ending a living life, plus the credo of these times, instant self-gratification. Before all the rest, a late-fetus has *physical* presence which no abortion-theorists can totally ignore. One hardly needs to ask a pregnant woman about her swelling extra weight and bulk, internal movement, changes in her body, etc. Her intimate experiences are her own, and universal. It is a separate, distinct body she bears in her body. Many a self-respecting, and self-aware woman would know with certainty this is a viable and "ready" life she carries, and not any of the glib justifications would let her, nor, evidently, the majority of women, sacrifice an almost-child's life to the "lesser or non-value" of getting 'rid of the problem' all to gain a few weeks of freedom. So a hierarchy of values, which almost everyone, at least implicitly, holds, counts as well. The publicized visuals of a "medical procedure", this kind of late abortion itself, e.g. a sonogram of a fetus recoiling from a surgical probe, has apparently disturbed most people, displaying that the hard reality demolishes 'theories' (politicized ones, especially). Like the polls show, this issue is mostly all talk and little action. A good note ...
  20. Of course there is a huge behavioral difference! A baby is outside the womb, in sensory, reciprocal contact with humans and a wide scope of reality. A fetus, clearly not. I ask you, does (e.g.) the visual cortex of a baby exist - a. before, or b. only after - its birth? Look, your drive here is on epistemology, the rational _functions_ of a baby (which, anyway, Objectivism disagrees with - a baby is pre-perceptual and preconceptual; for him, and for a while, objects and stimuli are "discrete"). That rationality, of faculty AND function, is for you the standard of human life, I guess. Mine focuses primarily on metaphysics and biology: Identity. Does a human fetus possess all the attributes of a baby? Can it have autonomous and supported life (-- exactly as it has in the womb, and will have after birth)? Whenever it is separated early from the uterus, we know it can. Therefore, it *can* continue its SELF-sustaining and SELF- generated 'life force', which should not be interrupted for its mother's or parents' convenience. The fetus has attained the conditions of ~human~life and should not be disposed of casualiy.
  21. The input via a newborn's senses is tremendous and rapidly increasing, that is known. What the above describes, however, are reflexive actions to stimuli, and a few simple *associations* made by a baby to, for one well-known instance, recognizing that single constant - its mother's physicality - and the pleasurable sensations it connotes with her proximity. This is behaviorism, of a sort, seems to me. Please do not, for god's sake, attribute to a baby the agency of 'identifying and integrating perceptual material' -- he/she has not as yet gained the perceptual stage of an adult dog! Reason, unlike sensation and perception, is *never* automatized (but volitionally conscious-you know). In sum, all this has over-estimated a baby's conscious capabilities and grossly underestimated reasoning.
  22. There is Gallup: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1576/abortion.aspx "Last three months of pregnancy" : Illegal - 81%, Legal - 13% (2018)
  23. The physical and psychological consequences are important. On a whole different level (and of concern to me) compared with here in South Africa, the general attitudes of Americans reflect a higher human value for life, in general, and for self-worth --across the political board -- on late-term abortions. A study I saw dated 2019, concluded that "The poll found overwhelming opposition to later term abortions. By a nearly three-to-one margin - 71% to 25% - respondents said abortion generally should be illegal during the third trimester of pregnancy". Then there's an odd disparity. Reportedly, less than 2% of US women actually take advantage of late abortion. So, one can drop the figures far lower. I put the explanation down to people announcing their identity politics, i.e. speaking 'the right thing' - but not doing: Theory vs practice.. And why polling/stats are unreliable and only a rough guide to what masses of people think and do. Speak with women, some of whom, pro-choice, and one mostly finds total distaste at the idea of aborting a grown, almost born fetus. Where then are the psychological effects, e.g. guilt and self-reproach, worse? Which is the lesser dis-value? Abort, or have adopted? (I omit the third option, the belated choice of bringing up the child, as assumed). That will vary according to individuals and their own evaluation-emotion responses. But by the 'figures' and my anecdotal evidence from acquaintances, a large majority of women (and men, closely) would avoid later-term abortion like the plague.
  24. With "a rational faculty is not a biological entity" I think you have moved here into the sphere of dualism, the "mind-body" dichotomy. This matters to this discussion, so good, but you do know that the dichotomy is dismissed, Objectively? The biological 'matter' of the brain and the consciousness are an integral whole. "The key point is that babies do have a capacity for reasoning, and they do reason". "From within hours of being born, they begin to think conceptually". I must say, I operate under very different definition-explanations of "reason" and "conceptual" than yours! I think one can certainly claim that a baby, being 'man', has the, as yet unrealized ~capacity~ of reason, but then I will claim that that is barely different from a developed fetus. The *faculty* of rationality needs to be distinguished from the (volitional) *function* of rationality. All this is why a baby/child doesn't yet have full individual rights. Lacking the function, it can't be held responsible for its actions.
  25. Women and men have near-identical opinions (on abortion) : https://www.stephenhicks.org/2019/05/18/abortion-is-not-a-men-versus-women-issue/
×
×
  • Create New...