Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Sherlock

Regulars
  • Content Count

    143
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Sherlock

  • Rank
    Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Jean
  1. meganfiala, Have you had any input from anyone other than your friend? Have you submitted your current resume to companies, but were rejected? Otherwise, it's hard to say if your friend's well-meaning advice was based on their merely subjective opinions or have a basis in facts which you will have to deal with.
  2. Sherlock

    Abortion

    JMeganSnow, You wrote: "A coma is a temporary condition under which rationality and consciousness are SUSPENDED." And lack of rationality and consciousness in a fetus is also a temporary condition---if it isn't killed, that is. Measurable brain waves and heart beats occur at a very young age---just a matter of weeks.
  3. Sherlock

    Abortion

    JMeganSnow, You wrote: "Are you asserting that a C-Section is NOT intrusive?" No, and your thinking that I did is an indication that you are quick to make assumptions---or you have difficulties in comprehension. C-sections ARE intrusive, but the intrusion is necessary for the ultimate physical well-being of mother and child. The intrusion of a partial-birth abortion, however, is neither necessitated by the physical well-being of the mother and instead has as it's main purpose the killing of the child.
  4. Sherlock

    Abortion

    JMeganSnow, You wrote: " Such information would have to be along the lines of demonstrating that a fetus is a rational being to an equal extent as a full-grown human AND that it somehow deserved to have its life maintained at the expense of another human. For various reasons I find this, well, silly." By your reasoning, then, there is nothing to keep you from killing the severely retarded of any age who cannot reason and who are dependent upon others. Likewise with those in a coma.
  5. Sherlock

    Abortion

    JMeganSnow, you wrote: "A potential human is not a human." Durandal, you wrote: "They are potential human beings. Using your logic, one could argue that I am murdering dozens of potential humans every week by not impregnating every female I meet." There is a problem with your logic: there are no "potential humans" anymore than there are potential apes. Actual apes are potential swimmers, and actual human beings are potential philosophers. The being is actual, the functioning is potential. One can't "murder" potential humans, only actual ones.
  6. Sherlock

    Abortion

    meganfiala, You wrote: "How can a 'human being' be innocent, if it hasn't the ability to be guilty of something? Only human beings with VOLITION have the ability to make choices and act upon them, and may be characterized as being 'guilty' or 'innocent'. A 'being' that never had the choice is neither." I used the term "innocent" in order to make a contrast with the life of, say, a convicted killer on death row, or participants in a war (soldiers). An infant isn't capable of making choices, nor the mentally retarded, but I don't have a problem with describing them as "innocent". If that w
  7. Sherlock

    Abortion

    JMeganSnow, You wrote: "This is a specious argument. Rights pertain only to one class of objects: humans. Fat cells can no more have "rights" than rocks can. Argument by analogy isn't very useful." You are correct: rights pertain only to one class of organisms: humans. We can agree there. My analogy was directed to the argument that regarded embryos as illegal squatters of some kind, when in fact they are the natural consequence of engaging in a particular activity, much as fat cells are the result of eating too much. You wrote: "So-called "partial-birth" abortions are performed when
  8. Sherlock

    Abortion

    Bruno, You wrote: "So, to you, rights are relative. If a woman chooses to have sex, then she cannot have an abortion; but, if she is forced to have sex, then she can have an abortion." I am not saying that in one situation, life exists and in the other situation it doesn't: life exists whether you think it does or not. I am simply bowing to political reality: a law that banned abortions will never be passed unless it makes exceptions for the two situations I mentioned. However, a law that bans abortion for the purpose of birth control has a chance of passing (though not anytime soon). T
  9. Sherlock

    Abortion

    RationalCop, you wrote: "And you still haven't proven that the purpose, or even the main purpose, of sex is procreation, you simply make the assertion." Durandal, you wrote: " Sex, per se, does not intrinsically possess a purpose, much like an inanimate object is incapable of being good or bad." I don't know if I can carry on any kind of meaningful conversation when even obvious interpretations of observed behavior is denied. What you are saying is sophistry at best (attacking a highly specific interpretation of words), irrational at worst. Are there other bodily functions that have you
  10. Sherlock

    Abortion

    Wow----where to begin? I'm going to try and address as many points as possible, but it may take a while (I have a job). RationalCop, you wrote: "You say designed, so that means you believe some being capable of intent designed sex for the purpose of creating babies. Who is this being that "designed" sex?" I don't know what word you would prefer other than "designed". "Programmed?" I can't use the word "evolved" in this case, since only those first simple forms of life that already had reproduction "built in" survived in order to evolve into more complex forms of life. But regardless of
  11. Sherlock

    Abortion

    Mr.Swig, You wrote: "You have not proven that an embryo is a human being. You continue to evade the real debate, and now you are left with mere ad hominem attacks on your opponents." No, it's simply that you won't accept the evidence I do offer that an individual's life is a continuum beginning at conception. And I am not engaging in ad hominem attacks. I was not able to address your last post to me because the thread was closed down, but that wasn't because you had presented convincing arguments against my position. You wrote: "Here you are basically saying that women who have an abo
  12. Sherlock

    Abortion

    Scientist, Your post paints a rather odd picture of the relationship between mother and offspring. The embryo does not magically appear in the mother's womb as an illegal squatter, but instead is the completely predictable consequence of having sex, the purpose of which is to produce babies. If a woman doesn't want to have a baby, she ought not to engage in the activity that produces them. If I were to take your approach and apply it to other aspects of human behavior, I could say, then, that despite eating a dozen pizzas and 6 quarts of ice cream a day, fat cells do not have a "right" to
  13. I understand Mr. Speicher's complaint, and will miss his posts as being in a very small category of posts that are both informative and without sneering or hostile attitudes. I have my own complaints: I have a "warning" icon that has been on my posts since an early exchange in which I engaged in too much sarcasm. I recieved no warning before the icon was attached, and have since seen other posters engage in sarcasm or worse without being so marked. It is hard not to conclude that the moderator simply didn't agree with my position. And yesterday, the thread on abortion was simply closed because
  14. Sherlock

    Abortion

    Dominique, You wrote: " No, we are saying a woman has a right to her own body and to not allow any tissue to grow inside her if she does not wish for it to do so." This is a bit like someone saying, "I have a right to eat twelve pizzas and six quarts of ice cream a day, but I do not wish to become fat." Most abortions are simply an after-the-fact means of birth control: here's a hint: sex creates babies. That is its purpose. If you don't want babies, don't engage in the one act that is designed to create them. I have nothing but pity for victims of rape; or mothers whose pregnancies thre
  15. Source, I'm confused: how can an act be justified, but incorrect? Are you trying to say that "some" action was justified, but Stephen just picked the wrong one to take? But since you identify the action taken very specifically as "Stephen's act", how can that be? Just wondering...perhaps you meant, "action was justified, but Stephen's was incorrect"?
×
×
  • Create New...