Abortion

[DrSammyD]

You are very confusing. First, you are using "human" as a noun, "a fetus is a human", then you argue the fact that "a fetus is human", but here "human" is an adverb. Later, in "it's just a human fetus" it's an adjective. A woman's liver is "human" too. It doesn't make it "a human".

I'll let you think it through, I'm not going to answer this any further.

Here's a sixth definition though, if you insist:

6. Tapeworm: a worm and a parasite, which lives inside a body.

In light of the above definition, please stop referring to tapeworms that are outside the body. They can't exist in reality, except as dead bodies, quickly decomposing. Human beings on the other hand can and do.

In your next argument you bring up the fact that a fetus is human, and in fact use the word "human" constantly, and I have no idea what you mean by that now. I decided to first let you clarify what you mean by "a human", "human" and "its own human" before I answer those points.

A human is a collection of organisms (cells) which collectively have the capacity to assimilate materials to produce near identical members of themselves with DNA that is compatible with yet distinguished from members of the same species, that species being bipedal primates in the family Hominidae, or that species from earth which members of have the capacity to cognate.

That is the only objective definition of human.

[Jake_Ellison]

A human is a collection of organisms (cells) which collectively have the capacity to assimilate materials to produce near identical members of themselves with DNA that is compatible with yet distinguished from members of the same species, that species being bipedal primates in the family Hominidae, or that species from earth which members of have the capacity to cognate.

That is the only objective definition of human.

Despite the fancy terminology that definition is not what a human being is. That is the definition pro-lifers use to justify calling a blastocyst (an early stage embryo made up of 50 cells) a human being.

Surely you have to realize that such a definition would make many terms which are currently in use completely unusable. If we accept that definition for a member of our species, the terms human rights, individual, humanism etc would completely lose their initial meaning.

By the same reasoning, the term forest would lose its meaning, since a handful of acorn-seeds would be considered a forest. A basket of goose eggs would be considered a flock of geese, etc.

How would you, operating under the assumption that everything that has the potential to become a living entity is in fact that entity, by definition, describe your food at a restaurant? What would the difference between fried chicken and an omelette be?

Surely, you cannot be so entrenched in your belief, that you are willing to ignore the basic metaphysical reality that a member of any species, including the human one, exists, in actuality, as separate from the rest, and capable of the same basic functions as the rest? You must realize that a tree filters water, extracting minerals which are used in the process of photosynthesis, and therefor a seed, which does no such thing, is not a tree (Even though it fits your definition, just by replacing the name of the species). A member of any bird species has a digestive, a circulatory etc system, all of which make it possible for it to move around, consume food and turn it into energy and matter, develop and learn to fly etc.

[JMeganSnow]

OK, fine, I'll stop with that for right now. But I will say that development of technology should never actually have an impact on a moral question.

Why not? This isn't a moral principle, this is the application of that principle to specific concretes. As the concretes change, the ways in which the principle must be applied WILL change. That's life and why Objectivism isn't and doesn't work as a dogma--because the concretes in reality are always changing and each new situation must be addressed.

You need to stop looking at things as though they have a single aspect and that aspect is all you need to understand the thing. Human life has a multiplicity of aspects, ALL of which must be taken into consideration before deciding what to do. In deciding that you only need to think about ONE aspect, you're oversimplifying and making your case absurd.

[RationalBiker]

I like the contract model because it enables us to cover a lot more of the issues.

The problem is that you cannot just assume a model because it is convenient for your position. An infant, a baby, and in most instances a child cannot legally contract to anything without the parent's (or a gaurdian's) consent. A contract is first and foremost a legal concept, not a moral concept, although there are associated moral issues with contracts.

You should first be able to make the moral case before you try to establish any legal implications so the first examination of the issue must be the moral examination, not a legal examination.

Despite the fancy terminology that definition is not what a human being is.

Yes, his definition leaves out the concept of 'being'. I'm trying to figure out if dead people would even fit under his definition. They are still human right? We don't change to giraffes when we die.

[Sir Andrew]

In my mind, It works like this:

If the fetus is dependent on the mother, it is still a potential.

If it is at the stage of viability, that is, it can survive without the mother, just deliver the baby and put it through a private adoption service. I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but I don't much see the point in half-way delivering a baby just to abort it, especially when you're gonna pull it out anyway. Just pull it out, snip the cord, and bam, you're done.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Sir Andrew

[JMeganSnow]

If it is at the stage of viability, that is, it can survive without the mother, just deliver the baby and put it through a private adoption service. I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but I don't much see the point in half-way delivering a baby just to abort it, especially when you're gonna pull it out anyway. Just pull it out, snip the cord, and bam, you're done.

Are you talking about "partial birth" abortions? Those are pretty much only performed when a.) delivery would harm the mother and b.) the fetus is non-viable for some reason such as being spectacularly deformed.

Issues such as these are for individual women to decide with their doctors based upon their particular circumstances.

[Jake_Ellison]

In my mind, It works like this:

If the fetus is dependent on the mother, it is still a potential.

If it is at the stage of viability, that is, it can survive without the mother, just deliver the baby and put it through a private adoption service. I'm not saying it should be outlawed, but I don't much see the point in half-way delivering a baby just to abort it, especially when you're gonna pull it out anyway. Just pull it out, snip the cord, and bam, you're done.

Actually, I think it should be outlawed for any doctor to do that to a viable child. I think that would constitute murder, if done when birth is possible too, without danger to the mother's life.

That's actually one of the few points I disagree on with many Objectivists, who (tentatively) say that rights begin when the cord is cut. I (tentatively) say that a human being comes into existence when it is able to exist independently, even if it isn't born. From that moment on, its well being should be considered to a degree, along with the rights of the mother. Abortion should no longer be available as a form of birth control.

Of course this is hardly a major issue, since I haven't heard of anyone actually performing such abortions, at least not in countries which allow abortions in the first trimester.

[DrSammyD]

Despite the fancy terminology that definition is not what a human being is. That is the definition pro-lifers use to justify calling a blastocyst (an early stage embryo made up of 50 cells) a human being.

Surely you have to realize that such a definition would make many terms which are currently in use completely unusable. If we accept that definition for a member of our species, the terms human rights, individual, humanism etc would completely lose their initial meaning.

By the same reasoning, the term forest would lose its meaning, since a handful of acorn-seeds would be considered a forest. A basket of goose eggs would be considered a flock of geese, etc.

How would you, operating under the assumption that everything that has the potential to become a living entity is in fact that entity, by definition, describe your food at a restaurant? What would the difference between fried chicken and an omelette be?

Surely, you cannot be so entrenched in your belief, that you are willing to ignore the basic metaphysical reality that a member of any species, including the human one, exists, in actuality, as separate from the rest, and capable of the same basic functions as the rest? You must realize that a tree filters water, extracting minerals which are used in the process of photosynthesis, and therefor a seed, which does no such thing, is not a tree (Even though it fits your definition, just by replacing the name of the species). A member of any bird species has a digestive, a circulatory etc system, all of which make it possible for it to move around, consume food and turn it into energy and matter, develop and learn to fly etc.

You seem to think that concepts can not have sub groups within that concept. It's as if you thought that with in the concept of Trees there could not be oak trees, apple trees, pine trees, or Birch trees, all of which are included when I say tree. Very similarly within the concept of birch trees, there are adult birch, young birch, and yes seedling birch. Just as the concept of tree does not mean All of the concept of birch tree, so to does the concept of birch tree not mean All of the concept of adult birch, or seedling birch. The concept of flock of geese would mean a gathering of adult geese. The gathering geese eggs would be just that. Concepts within other concepts don't lose their meaning merely by being grouped together. And to say that a fetus isn't a human because it is inside the mother is exactly like saying a joey isn't a kangaroo when it's in it's mothers pouch. You would deny biology and all that we've learned about life to say that it is not indeed a human. All humans have to have come from this stage of development, and it is directly traceable to this single type of individual.

Either way, this still does not give it the capacity to think, nor does it give it to a newborn. The fact is that as it stands a newborn does not have the capacity to think. It has the ability to gain the capacity to think, but this is a capacity twice removed. If you are willing to allow a twice removed capacity to give something rights, there is absolutely no reason to allow it for something three times removed, namely a fetus, who *will* become a human, who will develop a capacity to think. I reject that because you could extend that even further, such as to animals like chimps who *will* reproduce, and through enough generations *will* have the capacity to think, whatever. If our rights do come from our capacity to think, then indeed no newborn actually has the capacity to think and is therefore property to be discarded just like any other animal with out the capacity to think, with no regard for ensuring that it does survive e.g. giving it to an orphanage.

Edited December 14, 2008 by DrSammyD

[DavidOdden]

And to say that a fetus isn't a human because it is inside the mother is exactly like saying a joey isn't a kangaroo when it's in it's mothers pouch.

A liver is not a human being, even if it is human tissue. The essential characteristic of "human being" is autonomous existence. A fetus has the same rights as a liver.

[DrSammyD]

A liver is not a human being, even if it is human tissue. The essential characteristic of "human being" is autonomous existence. A fetus has the same rights as a liver.

Although you are right about a fetus having the same rights as a liver you are wrong in the biological sense that a fetus is just like a liver. A fetus is a different organism. This is shown in that it grows completely new organs such as a liver. Livers do not have the capacity to grow other individual humans. To say that a liver is the same as a fetus is exactly like saying a tree is the same as a grove.

Edited December 14, 2008 by DrSammyD

[Jake_Ellison]

Very similarly within the concept of birch trees, there are adult birch, young birch, and yes seedling birch. Just as the concept of tree does not mean All of the concept of birch tree, so to does the concept of birch tree not mean All of the concept of adult birch, or seedling birch.

You've changed my example (of a seed being a tree, according to your definition) to seedling. You deliberately left out my example, because it was too absurd to defend against.

You also evaded my other examples: why isn't an egg a chicken (a goose egg a goose)?

When I refer to man, assume that I am referring to a being that exists autonomously.

You on the other hand will (I assume) continue to use your definition. However, there is no reason why you should ever actually use the concept of human in an argument: you clearly do not assign any rights, general abilities and traits to that concept. To you a human is anything from a small collection of cells to a grown person: clearly, those two entities have only one thing in common, they are both made up of X number of cells containing human DNA, where X=2 to a 100 trillion.

Whenever you mention the term "a human being", I will have no idea if you are referring to a collection of 50 cells in a Petri dish, or to a grown man. Please, keep that in mind, and only use the word if it doesn't matter which of the two extremes I understand you to be referring to.

Instead, I will try to address your other argument: infanticide is not wrong, since infants are just property, without any rights.

I think that instead of addressing my point that the capacity to think doesn't mean the ability to think at this time, you are using them interchangeably.

By saying that "an infant is twice removed from the capacity to think", you are also saying that a sleeping man is removed from the capacity to think (by your definition of "capacity= current ability").

And of course, a comatose man is in the same position as an infant.

Please differentiate between the three, or admit that a sleeping or comatose man has no rights. Oh, and every time you say sleeping man, or comatose man, make sure you adapt it to your definition of "man". (by keeping in mind that sleeping zygote and comatose zygote are undefined terms)

And now, I would like to prove that you are not using the concept "human" consistently, you keep changing the definition to mean what you need it to mean.

Here, by human you mean something which thinks. You are in fact very clearly saying that a fetus is not a human.

namely a fetus, who *will* become a human, who will develop a capacity to think.

Just to make a point, this is also you, in post #815:

A fetus is most definitely a human.

I want you to know that from now on I am checking every argument you make, and posting every instance of you changing definitions around to suit your argument. Hopefully that will make you be consistent, or if that's not possible, it will end the discussion.

The same goes for deliberately changing my arguments when you are responding to them.

[DrSammyD]

You've changed my example (of a seed being a tree, according to your definition) to seedling. You deliberately left out my example, because it was too absurd to defend against.

You also evaded my other examples: why isn't an egg a chicken (a goose egg a goose)?

it's not a birch until it's fertilized. It's not a goose until it's fertilized. Or a chicken, or what ever. Biologically it doesn't have all the components to become another iteration of that organism until that point. If seeds are indeed fertilized than yes it is a birch in that it is part of the species, and not in the sense that a leaf is part of the species, but that it is a individual within that species. As is an embryo, or a seed, what ever, it matters not, biologically it is included in the concept of birch, or goose, or chicken. I wasn't evading, I was just assuming that that explaining one example could be extrapolated to the rest because all of them were directed at one aspect of the argument. But clearly that was something you refused to do for yourself.

When I refer to man, assume that I am referring to a being that exists autonomously.

You on the other hand will (I assume) continue to use your definition. However, there is no reason why you should ever actually use the concept of human in an argument: you clearly do not assign any rights, general abilities and traits to that concept. To you a human is anything from a small collection of cells to a grown person: clearly, those two entities have only one thing in common, they are both made up of X number of cells containing human DNA, where X=2 to a 100 trillion.

Whenever you mention the term "a human being", I will have no idea if you are referring to a collection of 50 cells in a Petri dish, or to a grown man. Please, keep that in mind, and only use the word if it doesn't matter which of the two extremes I understand you to be referring to.

Instead, I will try to address your other argument: infanticide is not wrong, since infants are just property, without any rights.

I think that instead of addressing my point that the capacity to think doesn't mean the ability to think at this time, you are using them interchangeably.

By saying that "an infant is twice removed from the capacity to think", you are also saying that a sleeping man is removed from the capacity to think (by your definition of "capacity= current ability").

And of course, a comatose man is in the same position as an infant.

Please differentiate between the three, or admit that a sleeping or comatose man has no rights. Oh, and every time you say sleeping man, or comatose man, make sure you adapt it to your definition of "man". (by keeping in mind that sleeping zygote and comatose zygote are undefined terms)

What I meant by this was that the grown adult has the equipment (read: amount of neurons/brain cells) to actually think, where as a chimp, newborn and fetus do not. That is what is meant by capacity to think. A newborn has the ability to gain that amount of neurons/brain cells, but does not currently have that therefore does not contain the capacity to think.

And now, I would like to prove that you are not using the concept "human" consistently, you keep changing the definition to mean what you need it to mean.

Here, by human you mean something which thinks. You are in fact very clearly saying that a fetus is not a human.

Just to make a point, this is also you, in post #815:

In this part I forgot to add in "even if you don't accept that a fetus is human" in front of that it does have the potential to become human. Ergo it would be, under your definition, three times removed instead of just twice, as it is under mine.

Edited December 15, 2008 by DrSammyD

[DavidOdden]

Although you are right about a fetus having the same rights as a liver you are wrong in the biological sense that a fetus is just like a liver.

If you can show me where I said that a fetus is just like a liver, or is the same as a liver, or is completely indistinguishable from a liver, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you did not attributed to me statements that I did not make.

[DrSammyD]

If you can show me where I said that a fetus is just like a liver, or is the same as a liver, or is completely indistinguishable from a liver, I would appreciate it. Otherwise, I would appreciate it if you did not attributed to me statements that I did not make.

Why is it not apparent what I meant by the rest of my statements? Is it not obvious that I did not mean that in the sense of "a fetus does not filter blood for the body and the liver is"? I meant that they are in two different categories, the liver being in the category of organs which are parts of a member in a species, and the other is a member of a species.

Edited December 15, 2008 by DrSammyD

[DavidOdden]

Why is it not apparent what I meant by the rest of my statements?

I just want to know why you're trying to avoid the central point by making up things that I never said? The abortion issue is about rights, not tissue function. A fetus is not a human, any more than a liver is a human. As you admitted, neither has rights.

[Jake_Ellison]

What I meant by this was that the grown adult has the equipment (read: amount of neurons/brain cells) to actually think, where as a chimp, newborn and fetus do not. That is what is meant by capacity to think. A newborn has the ability to gain that amount of neurons/brain cells, but does not currently have that therefore does not contain the capacity to think.

You are wrong: a newborn does indeed have plenty of braincells the moment it comes out of the womb, and those cells start connecting through experience right away: the learning process begins. The important point is that those braincells exist, and the only thing needed is the input a child starts to receive the day it opens its eyes and starts listening to the outside world, for those braincells to start being used: some of them right away, some in a few weeks or months after birth.

Again, the equipment is there, and it is in the process of becoming functional. (much like the brain of a sleeping man who is starting to wake up)

Yes, a baby's also grows, but it is still a functional brain to begin with. Should it not grow, it could still learn and go pretty far on the cells it already has.

it's not a birch until it's fertilized. It's not a goose until it's fertilized. Or a chicken, or what ever. Biologically it doesn't have all the components to become another iteration of that organism until that point. If seeds are indeed fertilized than yes it is a birch in that it is part of the species, and not in the sense that a leaf is part of the species, but that it is a individual within that species.

Just to clarify: both seeds and eggs are fertilized. (the seeds during the flower stage, before they fall to the ground, the eggs during the sexual act, while still inside the female bird, long before they are laid)

So please, just to make sure I understand you and your definition correctly, type these things, that you consider biological facts, out for me: An acorn seed is a tree. An egg is a chicken.

Then, please use them in plural, and say this fact out loud to someone: a handful of seeds are a bunch of trees. Oh, look at the trees he is holding in his hand. Also, point to an egg, and say: When do you think this chicken will start to walk?, to someone you think uses the same (after all biologically accepted -your words) definition as you.

Then write to your local newspaper, and announce that you solved the chicken/egg problem. A chicken came first, since the egg is in fact a chicken. I'm sure all biologists would jump to agree with you: after all, that's their definition.

Then tell me honestly if you still insist on your definition.

[DrSammyD]

You are wrong: a newborn does indeed have plenty of braincells the moment it comes out of the womb, and those cells start connecting through experience right away: the learning process begins. The important point is that those braincells exist, and the only thing needed is the input a child starts to receive the day it opens its eyes and starts listening to the outside world, for those braincells to start being used: some of them right away, some in a few weeks or months after birth.

Again, the equipment is there, and it is in the process of becoming functional. (much like the brain of a sleeping man who is starting to wake up)

Yes, a baby's also grows, but it is still a functional brain to begin with. Should it not grow, it could still learn and go pretty far on the cells it already has.

No, you are wrong. A newborn has a brain that is about 370cc, where as a chimp has a brain size of around 400 cc and adult brains are 1400 cc. At that point, it has less than the capacity to cognate than a chimp. All brains learn and have cells that connect through experience. But because something has a brain does not mean that it has the capacity to cognate, that requires a rather large amount of brain cells.

Just to clarify: both seeds and eggs are fertilized. (the seeds during the flower stage, before they fall to the ground, the eggs during the sexual act, while still inside the female bird, long before they are laid)

So please, just to make sure I understand you and your definition correctly, type these things, that you consider biological facts, out for me: An acorn seed is a tree. An egg is a chicken.

Then, please use them in plural, and say this fact out loud to someone: a handful of seeds are a bunch of trees. Oh, look at the trees he is holding in his hand. Also, point to an egg, and say: When do you think this chicken will start to walk?, to someone you think uses the same (after all biologically accepted -your words) definition as you.

Then write to your local newspaper, and announce that you solved the chicken/egg problem. A chicken came first, since the egg is in fact a chicken. I'm sure all biologists would jump to agree with you: after all, that's their definition.

Then tell me honestly if you still insist on your definition.

When I'm talking about a species, yes seeds are birch trees. But because we have names to differentiate between things in the category of birch, we don't say that a bunch of seeds are trees, even if scientifically they are members of the birch species. The problem is you are confusing the definitions of tree, one being the family of species known as trees and the members therein, and the other being an member of that species of ambiguous size. So in the first sense yes acorns are a group of trees, but not in the second.

Yes this will extend out into the human definitions as well. In the first sense when you say human, you mean Homo Sapient, and in the other you mean a member of that species, once again of ambiguous size. It is a scientific versus common language issue that you are trying to force into the issue, but I've been using the scientific meanings.

But surely you know that scientific terms are objective facts and more clear cut than common language. This is the obvious means to arbitrate meaning when it comes to morality if indeed morality is supposed to be based on objective facts. There is no room for ambiguity where it can be avoided.

Edited December 15, 2008 by DrSammyD

[Jake_Ellison]

But because something has a brain does not mean that it has the capacity to cognate, that requires a rather large amount of brain cells.

Oh yeah? How many? Please mention the scientific data which supports your answer.

By the way, an elephant's brain is about five times the size of an adult human's, and yet it doesn't have the capacity to cognate. How does that fit into your theory?

[Marc K.]

cognate

This word is causing some problems. It doesn't mean what you guys are implying.

If you mean the verb form of cognitive ability or cognition, then you might be referring to perceive or conceive. So animals also have a cognitive ability.

Since human beings, i.e. rational animals, perceive the world from birth, they are cognitive from birth. And since, as rational animals, we posses a conceptual consciousness, i.e. it is part of our nature, we begin to conceptualize very early on (albeit mistakenly at times).

[Marc K.]

I reject that because you could extend that even further, such as to animals like chimps who *will* reproduce, and through enough generations *will* have the capacity to think, whatever. If our rights do come from our capacity to think, then indeed no newborn actually has the capacity to think [...]

There are a couple of problems here. If by "capacity to think" you mean "faculty of reason" or "conceptual capacity", then you are wrong on both counts.

Chimps, no matter how many generations in the future, will never posses this faculty, that is not the way evolution works. Evolution doesn't work in a straight line, we didn't evolve from chimps, chimps and humans have a common ancestor.

More importantly for this discussion, a child does posses a conceptual capacity, that capacity is part of its nature, but it has no data to apply it to yet, not enough real world experience.

[Marc K.]

Actually, I think it should be outlawed for any doctor to do that to a viable child. I think that would constitute murder, if done when birth is possible too, without danger to the mother's life.

That's actually one of the few points I disagree on with many Objectivists, who (tentatively) say that rights begin when the cord is cut. I (tentatively) say that a human being comes into existence when it is able to exist independently, even if it isn't born.

Excuse me for saying (and excuse the pun) but you are giving away the baby with this argument. A not-all-that-fantastical hypothetical would involve a manmade uterus able to sustain an embryo from within the first trimester thus making it "viable" and exposing the mother to forced surgery.

Viability is not a good standard since it is variable. Some fetuses are viable at 7 months, some at 8 months and some babies aren't viable even after they are born (encephalitis and such).

"Human being" is the proper standard, meaning: human and actually independent -- not just "able to exist independently", which is a judgement call.

From that moment on, its well being should be considered to a degree, along with the rights of the mother. Abortion should no longer be available as a form of birth control.

You see, this leads to a conflict of rights and once you rule out abortion (as you have in the second sentence), then the rights of the mother are ignored.

[Jake_Ellison]

To Marc K.:

Human being is the standard, I agree. We need to objectively choose a time in a new organism's life, from which moment on it is a "human being".

You are saying that this moment is the moment when the cord is cut, but you are choosing this moment not based on any arguments you give. You are choosing it because this way you are able to resolve the conflict of rights issue very elegantly.

However, that fact, that a fetus is inside the mother, is not a valid argument in favor of abortion-rights. If that fetus were a human being, it would not be OK to abort it, wherever it is, and to my knowledge no Objectivist said that rights have to do with one's location. To my knowledge Objectivism doesn't define human beings as independent:

Man’s distinctive characteristic is his type of consciousness—a consciousness able to abstract, to form concepts, to apprehend reality by a process of reason . . . . [The] valid definition of man, within the context of his knowledge and of all of mankind’s knowledge to-date [is]: “A rational animal.”

(“Rational,” in this context, does not mean “acting invariably in accordance with reason”; it means “possessing the faculty of reason.” A full biological definition of man would include many subcategories of “animal,” but the general category and the ultimate definition remain the same.) --Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

In fact I heard Dr. Peikoff say that he isn't arguing for the mother's right to choose, he is arguing against considering the fetus a human being.

In this topic plenty of people rightfully argued that a fetus, in the first trimester, is not a human being, and therefor aborting it should be a matter of choice. All Objectivists would also have to agree that a newborn, minutes after birth, is in fact a human being. What I am suggesting is that there is no exact time where we can say that all these entities become human beings. In fact it varies from one fetus to another. Sure, saying that this time is when they become viable is stupid of me, for this very reason.

However, saying that we need to choose a cutoff time, earlier than birth, from which abortions are no longer a matter of individual choice but rather a matter of objective judgment, is not stupid. Man's consciousness, as you have rightly said, does not start out as a monkey's, or a lizard's, it is a human consciousness from start. Can you tell me that it begins at birth? I would in fact argue that there is evidence to suggest the contrary. Plus, during the final final weeks in the womb, some babies are more developed than others are after birth. If anything, considering them humans based on where they are is the arbitrary solution you speak of.

Again, my argument hinges on independence not being the measure of what a human is.

If you could give me reasons as to why I am wrong, I'd be happy to hear them, but I don't think Objectivism will provide you with any. I don't know that Ayn Rand has ever declared man's life to begin at birth, and I think she would have if she had known that for a fact.

[JMeganSnow]

To my knowledge Objectivism doesn't define human beings as independent:

In fact I heard Dr. Peikoff say that he isn't arguing for the mother's right to choose, he is arguing against considering the fetus a human being.

Objectivism does not, in fact, define any concepts of any kind in any matter, although it is in the interest of Objectivists to pursue the most objective definitions possible.

Separate existence is part of the proper, objective definition of a human being because you run into some very sticky and insurmountable problems if you try to define it any *other* way. Look at the examples above if you need proof. If you try to define a human being as a collection of DNA or cells, then you're committing murder every time you scratch. If you start defining based on potentials instead of actuals, you wind up arriving at the conclusion that we ought to treat everyone the same way we treat corpses, because everyone eventually becomes a corpse.

The *only* result that takes into account *all* of the facts and the precise nature of human beings is to ignore whether or not a fetus "could" be viable outside the womb and look at only what *is*: it *is* inside of another human being and assigning rights to the fetus means violating the woman's rights.

Infants having rights (even though they can't exercise them yet) doesn't *require* the violation of anyone else's rights--it requires and assumes a voluntary relationship between the person who assumes responsibility for exercising the infant's rights and taking care of the infant, just like power of attorney requires and assumes a voluntary relationship.

If you're having trouble with the abstract formulations, it's always a good idea to start looking at practical applications and results. Remember that the moral IS the practical.

Edited December 16, 2008 by JMeganSnow
ommitted some words that made it look weird

[Marc K.]

Endorsing everything Jennifer has said, let me add:

You are saying that this moment [when one is a human being] is the moment when the cord is cut, but you are choosing this moment not based on any arguments you give. You are choosing it because this way you are able to resolve the conflict of rights issue very elegantly.

Yes, and this is a very important part of the argument. We know that the rights of man do not conflict.

To my knowledge Objectivism doesn't define human beings as independent:

Well, we know that Objectivism endorses the virtue of independence which, I know, refers to action and not a state of being but I don't think it is too much of a stretch to consider that independent action can only apply to an independent being. At least all of the human beings I know are independent.

What I am suggesting is that there is no exact time where we can say that all these entities become human beings. In fact it varies from one fetus to another.

I suggest there is an exact time which is implied by definition of "human being".

Man's consciousness, as you have rightly said, does not start out as a monkey's, or a lizard's, it is a human consciousness from start. Can you tell me that it begins at birth? I would in fact argue that there is evidence to suggest the contrary.

A conceptual consciousness, in order to function properly, must have input from the outside world.

I don't know that Ayn Rand has ever declared man's life to begin at birth, and I think she would have if she had known that for a fact.

Ayn Rand had questions about viability and when life begins but to my knowledge she never wavered on a woman's absolute right to have an abortion.

[DrSammyD]

Oh yeah? How many? Please mention the scientific data which supports your answer.

By the way, an elephant's brain is about five times the size of an adult human's, and yet it doesn't have the capacity to cognate. How does that fit into your theory?

You're right, I defined it too simply by using mere volume, Sorry I didn't explain it further. Elephants do have a bigger brain, but It's down to how much percentage of the body is brain, and how much body does the brain have to run. Absolute, as opposed to relative, brain size certainly has an effect -- you really need a basic minimum number of neurons -- but relatvie size has a real effect, since every creature needs to devote a minimum amount of brain power to control muscle motion and instinctive behavior and basic function. For intelligence, you need a minimum number of neurons to be available in the frontal and pre-frontal cortices, where we do a lot of what is called "higher thought processes", as opposed to the above, and running bodily functions and sorting through sensory input.

By the time a human is born, most of the brain development has happened in the non pre-frontal cortices. This is for very good evolutionary reasons. Before you need to think intelligently, you need to have control of your body. Your brain needs to tell you heart to beat, your lungs to breath, so on and so forth, and it needs to happen before you are born, because after you're born, you have no support system for that type of thing. So the emphasis of brain development before birth is on that. After that, your brain develops the capacity to think, or conceptualize as Marc K has been pointing out is what I've actually meant.

This word is causing some problems. It doesn't mean what you guys are implying.

If you mean the verb form of cognitive ability or cognition, then you might be referring to perceive or conceive. So animals also have a cognitive ability.

Since human beings, i.e. rational animals, perceive the world from birth, they are cognitive from birth. And since, as rational animals, we posses a conceptual consciousness, i.e. it is part of our nature, we begin to conceptualize very early on (albeit mistakenly at times).

We do not have the ability to conceptualize as newborns. The first chapter of Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology has a lot to say on how we think. As newborns we really only have the capacity to retain percepts, which are groups of sensations, something we automatically do through our nervous system. In other words we can remember things, much like animals can. I'd suggest watching this video for more on this if you don't like to read.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_LP2OUxekI...feature=related

There are a couple of problems here. If by "capacity to think" you mean "faculty of reason" or "conceptual capacity", then you are wrong on both counts.

Chimps, no matter how many generations in the future, will never posses this faculty, that is not the way evolution works. Evolution doesn't work in a straight line, we didn't evolve from chimps, chimps and humans have a common ancestor.

More importantly for this discussion, a child does posses a conceptual capacity, that capacity is part of its nature, but it has no data to apply it to yet, not enough real world experience.

I wrote the word "will" as *will* because it is conditions based. Chimps *will* develop the capacity to think or conceptualize provided that social interaction remains important to chimps and those that are smarter will be able to reproduce. And yes that is how evolution works. I know that evolution isn't a straight line, but being smarter is definitely advantageous, and as long as it is, chimps will develop their brains even further.

Similarly an infant *will* develop the capacity to think or conceptualize. It does not have it yet, but on the condition that the parent decides to take care of it and put energy into it, it *will*.

A newborn does not have the conceptual capacity. You could throw all the experience in the world at a newborns brain, but if it's pre-frontal cortex never grew more than proportionately, it would still be at the capacity of less than a chimp, as I've explained with the development process of the brain.

Edited December 16, 2008 by DrSammyD