Sherlock

Dominique, You wrote: "Perhaps I did not get specific enough. Once born an infant has a right to life." Why? So the all-important question of whether or not its OK to kill a person depends upon location? As for your quote "Outside Source": how can I take this argument seriously, when it states "After all, sperm and ovum are just as much potential persons as are embryos, even if they only contain half of the genetic material. According to this view, manslaughter occurs whenever a woman menstruates, and mass murder occurs when a man has a wet dream!" This is not supportable: a sperm is not an embryo, nor is an egg. They do not grow into humans on their own, and so are not "potential persons". Each egg or sperm contains the DNA of the individual carrying them, not a separate, individual DNA as does a growing, developing embryo. You wrote: "right-you're being redundant, my point was if human DNA is not so special, then all life is equal, but you have already stated that you believe human DNA to contain special *rights-bearing* qualities." No, I did not state that. A human life has a right to life, that is what I am stating. I bring up the DNA aspect because it proves that the growing embryo is distinct and is materially different from an organ of the mother, as has been suggested. Your other outside source states: "It (being born) has to be a sufficient condition, because there is no other point at which a line between rational and non-rational can be drawn." Eh? But a baby isn't rational, regardless of whether it's just born, or in the womb five minutes earlier. It doesn't appear that rationality is the determining condition after all, according to the writer, but location. The only reason that it "has" to be a sufficient condition is that the writer wants it to be. And I really like this: "The scale of a child's cognitive development is a scale of degrees. There is no specific point at which the child suddenly becomes rational. Rather, the change is gradual." That's exactly my point! Life is a continuum, and if you don't kill that fetus, it will become rational (hopefully---there are those who are mentally retarded). It seems arbitrary to decide on location as the cutting-off point.

RationalCop, Yes, I did heed your suggestion. My participation, with the exception of my initial statement that there were some atheist pro-lifers, has largely consisted of responding to questions that are directed towards me. Perhaps your comments, then, would be more usefully directed to the people asking me questions.

AisA, You wrote: "Prior to birth, the organism is alive in the same sense as the body's organs are alive." No, it's very, very different. The body's organs contain the same DNA "fingerprint" as the body they are a part of. They can never develop into a human adult. You wrote: "It is not a separate entity from its mother." I think you need to study some basic embryology! It has it's own distinct DNA, and as early as eight weeks, it has a beating heart, brain waves, kidneys, liver---all the basic components of a mature adult. It is indeed a separate entity---just ask anyone who has had a very early "preemie" baby. You wrote: "Objectivism offers a rigorously logical proof that human beings possess rights. But there is no proof that human life possess rights." I understand what you are saying, but then you are in the position of saying who and who is not a human being. That's too subjective: Dominique suggests that it's the capacity for reason that determines the existence of rights, which presumably means it's OK to kill infants and the severely retarded.

Dominique, You wrote: " The issue is what seperates human life? The DNA, or the ability to reason? That is a topic explored in detail in many Objectivist books, such as the VOR and ITOE. An embryo cannot reason" Neither can infants: does that make it OK to kill them? Neither can severely retarded individuals: you're OK about killing them? You asked, "Why would human DNA on it's own, make an embryo have a *right to life* when a cow doesn't have such a thing?" Wow---this is an obvious one: because a cow doesn't have human DNA, a human does. You asked, "Unless you are also opposed to killing animals for our nourishment, clothing etc.? Of course not---they're not human, and thus cannot have human rights (PETA-types notwithstanding...) You wrote: "Also, by that reasoning you could not remove a cancerous tumor, since it also has human DNA, and is in fact alive." It does not have human DNA that is distinct from its victim. A human embryo has its own distinct, individual DNA. So, I take it that partial-birth abortion as well as infanticide are OK with you, since the capacity to reason is not evident?

AisA, Sorry, I haven't gotten that far and was responding to earlier posts. I look forward to reading your more recent posts, but have been pressed for time this morning.

AisA, You asked, "Before I reply, may I ask: Are you familiar with the Obectivist view of man's rights and their source? If so, do you agree or disagree with that view?" I am familiar with them, and indeed used to think of myself as an Objectivist. However, I'm not so sure my understanding was or is very complete, which is why I'm on this forum. So far, it has been fairly helpful: on one thread, at least, the Speichers cleared up what I thought was a contradiction (or at least a confusion), for which I'm thankful. However, this question seems very basic to me: when, biologically speaking, does life begin? Science seems to answer that one clearly. And I don't think that the deliberate taking of innocent human life is OK---it's as simple as that.

AndrewSternberg, You wrote: "So far you have implictely revealed that you believe to be living is all that is needed for an entity to have rights. What other premise would allow you to attach rights to a being at the moment that its life begins." Yes, let me be more explicit: one needs to be alive in order for one to have rights. Dead people don't have rights, as you may have noticed. As the Declaration states, we have inalienable rights to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Notice that the right to life comes first, as without it the others are non-existent. So, yes, I believe that human beings have a right to life that cannot be rescinded. Of course, capital punishment removes this right, but only after a determination of guilt for some particularly heinous crime is made. How is an embryo "guilty" of anything that would warrant that life being taken? You wrote: "You should be asking what else an entity needs in order to have rights, which goes back to answering AisA's most recent question." I am not speaking of all rights, as not all rights are "inalienable", as the Declaration states. An infant does not have a "right" to drive a car. It does have a right not to be killed. An 18-year old kid does not have a "right" to have a job or health care; he does have a right not to be killed. A mentally retarded individual does not have a "right" to a paycheck; he does have a right not to be killed. In short, the right to life is basic and primary. Being alive and being human are the only requirements for the right to life: human corpses don't have rights, and non-humans obviously do not share human rights.

Tom Rexton, You asked, "So do you think that roads should be privately owned?" Theoretically, yes, as I have a preference for private over government ownership. But I have some concerns and questions about how this would translate from theory into practice, and instead of answering them, my motives are questioned and positions that I do not in fact hold are attacked instead. If I can't get a rational response to these simple questions, then to be honest, I sure in hell wouldn't trust you to own any road that I have to travel on.

AisA, I used to be pro-choice in my youth, but I have since changed my position: I am pro-life. My reasons are that, biologically speaking, life is a continuum that begins at conception. Drawing a line anywhere else makes "life" dependent upon arbitrary definitions, which I see as dangerous. For example, if a baby has a right to life only when it leaves the womb, are we saying that life depends upon location? Why can we kill a baby right up until the time of birth as long as it's in the womb (or, in the case of partial-birth abortion, the skull is still in the birth canal), but somehow, magically, a change of location renders it "alive" and possessing rights? If we restrict abortions to, say, the first trimester, how is the fetus magically more "alive" at 91 days than it was the day before? Nor do I accept definitions of "personhood" as being the determining factor: far too subjective, and history is replete with examples of whole classes of people being considered "non-persons", with a resulting loss of rights. I want something firm, that's based on science. And that tells me that life begins at conception. No one needs to be religious to accept this, whether you agree with me or not. And even if you don't agree with me, you have to spell out logically the exact point in time when life begins. It can't be as arbitrary as someone wanting it to be life or not because of its inconvenience. If A is A, then that life is a human life, albeit in its first stages.

ex_banana-eater, You wrote: "Infact, why wouldn't this happen with all industries? Why isn't everything a monopoly right now, is it because we have anti-trust to save us?" No, it's because smaller companies are more creative and flexible, and able to deliver goods (and especially services) in a way that ensures their continued existence in most sectors (not all). Small business fosters entrepreneurship; big business stifles it. However, in order for small businesses to survive, they need relatively equal access to roads. If roads were owned by big companies (the only ones likely to have the capital to buy the land, build the road, and maintain it), I can see the gradual snuffing out of competition by those big companies. (And in answer to your other question, yes, I am referring to roads in this case when I speak of infrastructure.) You wrote: "Yes, big companies are more efficient than little companies." Only in some ways: it's true that big companies have more capital at their disposal and have the advantage of bulk purchasing, but they are not as efficient in other, very important, ways. So far, no one has seen fit to address this other than to rail at me for positions that I don't, in fact, hold.

Mr. Swig, Did you read what I wrote before you launched into your reply? Here, let me repeat to you what I wrote. Now, read very, very slowly, and look at all of the words. Here's what I first said: "There are atheists who are against abortion, you know." Note that I did not say that there were a lot of them, but merely that they existed. When you demanded some names, I gave you the name of a pro-life atheist and agnostic organization, and a couple of individuals' names. I even restated, when giving you this information, "Are there lots of pro-life atheists? No, but I wasn't claiming that there were. I merely said that there were atheists against abortion." And despite the utter absence of any claim on my part that there are a lot of pro-life atheists, your post wastes time and space by ranting that there aren't many pro-life atheists, and that I "must be trying to pull my leg or something". No, no leg-pulling going on here---just an inability on your part to comprehend what I wrote. Here's a hint: before launching another rant against what I didn't write, why don't you read what I actually wrote?

ex_banana-eater, You wrote: "Secondly, it is inefficient compared to capitalism, as is any monopoly." And that raises again a question which I asked about on that "roads" thread but was never answered: how are small businesses going to be able to have the capital to ensure their own infrastructure? It seems to me that it is far more likely that big companies with lots of capital can buy most of the infrastructure and drive their smaller competitors out of business. It seems to me that what we would end up with would be road monopolies.

The tortured one, You asked: "But what makes you think that the government is made up of nothing but rational people?" But I don't think that. Where did you come up with that one? You asked, "What makes you think the government can be trusted to always make the rational decision?" Nothing makes me think that, because I don't think that at all nor did I say anything to that effect. What makes you ask a question based on assumptions that are incorrect? Fallible people make up governments and so governments are (duh!) fallible. My point was that despite its fallibility, the government, because of its size and coherence, may be the best entity for managing roads. Provide me with logical and (most importantly) possible alternatives and I'll re-consider. Hint: don't give me a scenario that depends upon everyone acting rationally, because that won't happen.

Mr. Swig, You asked, "Before addressing this inaccurate representation of my view, I'd like to know what atheist leader is trying to overturn Roe v. Wade. Who are these atheists of which you speak? I'm curious." There's the Atheist and Agnostic Pro-Life League (AAPL), the founder of which is Matt Wallace. There's Jen Roth, who's written for infidels.org. There are other writers, etc---I think an Internet search would come up with more names. Are there lots of pro-life atheists? No, but I wasn't claiming that there were. I merely said that there were atheists against abortion. You wrote: "You can contest the issue of conception being the starting point until you are blue in the face, but you are unlikely to get anywhere debating Christians on this issue, unless you initially provide an objective definition of a human being and ultimately challenge the arbitrary assertion of the Divine Creator." I'm not talking about debating Christians. I am saying that an atheist can be against abortion purely on the grounds of embryology: the fetus is human; it's unique (has its own DNA); and is alive.

Tom Rexton, Your responses seem to be heavily laden with scorn (what makes YOU think...YOU cannot conceive of a solution...) so it hardly seems worth responding to. If you could offer likely alternative scenarios instead of squirting attitude around, that would be more constructive, but I won't hold my breath... You wrote: "What in the world makes you think that private entrepeneurs would plunder and destroy natural resources so that they will have nothing left in the future?" Geee, how about "because it's happened in the past"? Have you ever heard of Passenger Pigeons? They were overhunted and completely wiped out. The market hunters who depended on them destroyed that natural resource. This is where the weak link is in all of this: people don't always act rationally.

ChristopherSchlegel, Marvelous post. And I agree: these "auditory events" are anti-music. Their equivalent in the visual arts is the meaningless modern garbage that we are all, unfortunately, too familiar with. Literature has been reasonably immune (so far) from these extremes, as modern writers still need letters to create words, and words to create sentences---they haven't yet been able to figure out a way to "liberate" themselves from the tyranny of these rules. What I marvel at are the legions of pseudo-intellectuals that will go and listen to an orchestra play this garbage. I have to believe that they are going to for the primary purpose of being seen, and being seen as an aficionado of the most current and cutting-edge "art". I also think that one can corrupt or at least dull the innate appreciation of coherent art and music sense by continued exposure to anti-art and anti-music.

AisA, The question is not whether or not "men become more creative and productive when working for the government than working privately"---usually they don't---but whether or not the concerns raised by Hangnail are valid. I think they are. Although the government may not be the most efficient entity when it comes to creativity and productivity, it may still be the most efficient entity to manage roads because of its size and coherence. I have the same concerns that Hangnail has regarding roads, and participated a little on the thread that non-contradictor listed. One of my concerns that I expressed there was the difficulty of small businesses being able to wield the necessary capital to secure their infrastructure, that is, their own roads. No one ever addressed that. Multiple owners with multiple fee structures all operating within the 2-mile drive it takes me to go to the local grocery store would be confusing and inefficient; that small stretch multiplied by millions and millions of road miles boggles the mind. Adding to the improbablity is that such a system would seem to require that everyone act rationally: I'm not going to hold my breath.

Thanks, Stephen and Betsy---you've clarified that particular confusion.

There are atheists who are against abortion, you know---it is not strictly a religious vs. non-religious issue. And I don't think that it's the "definition of a human being" that is the crux of the matter, but when human life begins.

Thanks, I'll remember that next time you post. You wrote: "Dr. Peikoff’s wording was quite deliberate and quite correct." How could he be correct when he contradicts Miss Rand: "The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." Plants and lower animals have no alternatives, and thus have no goals or values possible. This contradicts Peikoff's broad use of "an organism" in the initial quote referenced.

Bowzer, You wrote: "If you don’t believe that a standard of value is present in the actions of living organisms, then I don’t see how you can say that living things pursue values at all." You should be more careful in reading what I write: note that I am simply denying a "standard of value" for SOME living organisms, not ALL, as you seem to suggest in this sentence. Some living things are capable of pursuing values; others are not. That is all I am saying, and Betsy, who obviously is far more knowledgeable about Objectivism than I, appears to agree when she writes: "A STANDARD of value is only meaningful in a human context since lower animals and plants don't need a standard to measure and evaluate and are incapable of using such abstractions." Furthermore, your quotes from Miss Rand also seem to support this: "The concept "value" is not a primary; it presupposes an answer to the question: of value to whom and for what? It presupposes an entity capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative. Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." Just how is a plant "capable of acting to achieve a goal in the face of an alternative"? It can't "decide" to "pursue" any value. No other alternatives exist for it, thus, as Miss Rand says, "no goals and no values are possible". It is programmed by its genetic material to live to reproduce, and that's it. No choice, no values.

Betsy, You wrote: "A STANDARD of value is only meaningful in a human context since lower animals and plants don't need a standard to measure and evaluate and are incapable of using such abstractions." Yes, thank you! That was my only point: that I thought that Peikoff made a mistake in saying, "An organism's life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil", precisely because "an organism" implies "any organism" which is simply not the case. As you point out, the statement is only meaningful when applied to humans.

Inspector, I assumed that it was probably "dichotomy" that had been left out. However, I wanted to make sure because it's never wise to make assumptions. Having cleared that up, I should, in all fairness, point out that not all (or even most) religions posit a dichotomy between mind and body. Even if that were the case, however, I don't think that such a dichotomy would account for why capitalist countries tend to be Christian.

Hangnail, I think humor can be a useful vehicle to convey ideas---at the right time and in the right place. You wrote: "And I've noticed in the past that if the listener is entertained by the analogy, they are more likely to understand it." If your listener is entertained by that analogy, then I'd posit that they're already favorable to your way of thinking to begin with, and you're preaching to the choir. If you want theists to "understand" your position, then using this analogy is counterproductive.

What is meant by "mind/body" here? "Mind/body" what? Is there a word missing?