thenelli01

FYI I just realized this topic is going on in the politics subsection with the same example about the lifeboat. I remember I quickly read that example of the lifeboat a while ago and then recently thought how it could apply to abortion without remembering that that was what the topic was about. Sorry, I haven’t been on this forum as much lately and when I do I just skim. Apologies on the duplicate. I’m gonna go through the old topic to make sure I’m not just repeating what was said and see if I can offer something new...

It would still be incumbent on the mother to transfer the duty to someone else, which entails physical dependence on the mother. Unless you think it’s morally permissible for a mother to have a child in an alley and abandon it there to die?

You don’t know me well enough and haven’t spoken to me long enough to know whether or not I have a standard of rights.

I put “etc” to indicate that there needs to be some objective standard of being considered an actualized human being, but not necessarily the one (or only the few) I’ve listed. I think if a fetus could survive outside of the womb, that would indicate its developed nature and capacity for independence, which would seem to be a good standard to support that it should be considered human. (Open to arguments here) With respect to the 6 month mark for feelings and consciousness - I specifically wrote “6 month(ish)” or whatever timeline is determined. My point isn’t to nail down an exact pin point on the time, but a philosophical standard saying “at (any) point x, when the fetus has these qualities a, b, c then it should be considered an actualized human being and deserving of rights.” A born child is physically dependent on a mother’s exercise of her rights also. If the mother doesn’t use her money to buy her child food and feed it, the child will die. The issue isn’t dependence on the mother, the issue is when does the fetus get rights deserving of being protected by the mother.

I know there are a lot of abortion topics on this site, apologies if this is a duplicate - I didn't want to get lost in an old thread and didn't want to read through all of the old topics. I wanted to get some thoughts on this. For an argument against late term abortion and birth as the clear line: there is a point, maybe around 6 months(ish), where a mother has a moral (and legal - ideally) obligation to carry out the pregnancy, given that her health isn't at risk. At around 6 months (ish) or however far along the process it is determined, the fetus is developed enough to be considered human - it experiences consciousness, feelings, could live outside of the mother at this time if given the opportunity, etc. At this point, the mother has a responsibility to carry out the pregnancy because it is by her action that the cells were able to develop inside her body to the point where it actualized into a human being deserving of rights. Although it is the mother's body and she has the right to do what she wishes with it, she does not have the right to kill another human being after initially extending an invitation (I mean this metaphorically, though I suppose it will be a point of contention, especially using the word invitation). The fetus is "trespassing" at this point, but that does not give her the right to kill it when it depends on her for life. She had a responsibility to abort the cells before it developed to the point of a human being deserving of rights. I liken this to when you invite someone on a boat and travel into the ocean. You are cannot get upset with them in the middle of the ocean and claim that they are trespassing as it is YOUR boat and demand that they get off your property (i.e. jump in the ocean, leading to their death). In the same fashion, you cannot demand a fetus get removed from your body after you have implicitly invited them through inaction. I'm not stuck on this argument, I just was thinking about it and wanted to get some thoughts.

What’s the best one you’ve read? A little off topic but I’m curious 🙂

Hey, can anyone please recommend books on Iran’s role in the middle eastern conflicts and terrorism (taliban, etc)? thanks!

Hi, I’m trying to get a better understanding of how currencies, monetary systems, banking all works - was wondering if anyone had any books that might be a good fit? preferrably audio books, I don’t have much time to read right now but paper books are OK too.

Can it be grief of a loss in the sense of “loss of the investment of believing in the concept of God” - which includes the time devoted to and action taken by result of such belief, as well as the emotional investment. This could include prayers said every night, time spent at church, time following the teachings of God/not following your other passions, which were perhaps restricted by God’s teachings... e.g. think of the 60 year old disabled man that never had sex because he never married and recently realized God never existed. He didn’t lose anything in the sense that God never existed and you can’t lose a non-value, but he did lose his investment, which were the years spent (and experiences never realized) abstaining from sex, derived from the idea that following God's teachings will result in him going to heaven. Similar situation is when you find out your partner is cheating on you as was described above. You never lost anything in the sense that the relationship you thought existed never did. But you did lose the investment that you put into it - the time, money, possible relationships you could have made if you hadn't spent it with him/her, hopes/dreams for the future, etc. Yes, you did gain a better sense of reality in both cases, but you did lose the investment, which could understandably cause grief, no?

Hi, I'm having a bit of trouble spiritually. I was in a relationship with someone who was narcissistic, which I'm learning about now post-leaving through education. I wasn't looking for a relationship when we met 4 years ago but it kind of just happened. Anyways, without going too much into specifics - he cheated on me for the whole 4 years straight, used me for money, wasn't productive etc. I constantly worked to try to fix the issues, but eventually I realized how bad the deceit was (I knew he was cheating, I just didn't know the extent, or I admittedly evaded/hoped he would change). FYI - any cheating/lying is bad regardless of degree, I'm not suggesting otherwise, whether it is a text or a physical encounter as this contradicted the understanding of our relationship. I admit my part in this by staying and not leaving at the first sign of deceit... I was constantly being told "I was the one he was gonna marry", "it's just bad habits that he was working to solve" and then just a constant pity party where he constantly had this "If I just get over this hump, everything will be great" mentality... but the overcoming of the hump never came. It was a way of life. I was constantly stressed, preoccupied with his cheating/problems that I couldn't ever focus on my life and my goals. I finally had the strength to leave (we moved to Cali primarily to pursue his career dreams and just for the adventure) and moved back home. Now, 4 months later... I'm kind of in a bad spot mentally. I feel a bit of confusion about what happened... I'm having nightmares almost every night about cheating and such. It constantly preoccupies my mind. I'm struggling to open up to other people and form meaningful connections. Rationally I know that the proper response is "It's over, accept it. Move on with your life, take them as lessons" but it's not that easy. There is still a bunch of hurt and confusion and just pain in that I let myself get so treated so badly/low. Does anyone have any suggestions on how to move forward (besides seeing a therapist)? I took him out of my life completely last week... I try to stay positive - I have good and bad days. But, I really want to move on and have a meaningful, happy life and friendships, but I can't seem to do it. Some days I don't even want to leave the house or talk to anyone, mostly because when I do I'm constantly dealing with other people's issues/shortcomings that it just adds additional stress. When I do go out, I make it by way of principle to try to stay optimistic and positive to the people around me and not talk about what is bothering me or anything personal really. The hard part is also that I'm gay and no one really knows this so I only have 1 friend I can talk to about it - who introduced me to the topic of narcissism. Also, I don't really like talking badly about people, even if they deserve it, second handedly (i.e. gossip, etc.) so that is another difficulty trying to get over. Can someone please help me out?

I can't help to wonder what your motivation is for seeking this information. Are you gay? Is your self-worth dependent on whether or not Ayn Rand accepted a person's homosexuality enough, to the extent of maintaining a friendship? I only ask, not because I care whether or not that you are gay, I don't. I care about you using Ayn Rand as the standard in which you judge your own self-worth. If this is not the case, and you are just curious about the topic, please ignore. IF it is the case, I suggest you rethink your reasoning.

Hello, Anyone that watched care to offer any analysis of the first debate?

Does the CDC make the distinction between just killings and unjust killings or take into consideration the context of the cop killings?

But, why is the fact that reason kicks in relevant if it isn't a baby still isn't far enough in the development stage where "rights" arise? I.e. Potential is not the actual. Edit: And I just read your edit -- Lol at the goats :-|.. I think you sort of answered my question.

A fetus is a human biologically -- i.e. it is the offspring of two humans -- shares DNA and everything. I don't know why you keep saying a fetus is not a human (unless you mean "Man"). A baby doesn't have the capacity to be rational in the context that gives rise to rights. It has the potential to be able to reason as adult humans do, but until then they are around the level of some higher animals. I don't see the difference between having rational capacity on a VERY low level, but having the potential to develop to the rational capacity of an adult human (baby) vs. having the potential to develop to the rational capacity of an adult human (fetus). What does it matter if a baby has some degree of rational capacity if it isn't actually the degree of adult humans if it isn't for potential? Unless you are arguing that babies do have the same rational capacity as adult humans or at the least the level in which notions of "rights" arise, it seems both are on a progressive timeline towards rational capacity with babies only being a bit further.

Or, I was thinking you were referring to the question in the OP.

Well, that is the part you should answer, because if potential matters in the case of babies (-- i.e. the capacity has the potential to develop into human adult reasoning capabilities--- the capabilities that matter in the context and discussion of rights), then it seems to be a contradiction to say a fetus doesn't have rights because it is a potential, not an actual. But, if the potential isn't what matters in the case of babies, then it seems some of the higher animals, which have reasoning capabilities equal to or greater than babies, should be treated as the same status as babies.

Huh, that is not the reverse of my question.

Can you really attribute this idea to Ayn Rand? But size of the vessel of a baby is the same size, or smaller, as some of the higher animals. The vessel size of a baby and an adult isn't the same size. To make the analogy more accurate, the size of the baby's vessel is the same (or smaller) as some higher animals with raw clay on the side. As they get older and their brain develops, their rational capacity increases (i.e. the raw clay is added to increase the size of the vessel). So, why aren't some of the higher animals treated as the same status as babies, morally and politically?

Can you explain this a little bit more, seems contradictory. Doesn't the fetus have the potential to become a rational human being, just as a baby does? The only difference is that an infant is further along the progressive timeline. Can you explain the distinction more thoroughly, please? I don't think the argument for choice in abortion lies in a rights issue -- but, I do think Objectivists tend to go this route. I am just curious how to answer this.

Wondering if anyone is familiar with this argument and can answer this point: if man's rational nature is the relevant characteristic when determining rights or that distinguishes man from other animals -- why do infants have rights if they are at or below the level of some of the higher animals? If it is the potential for rationality, then isn't this an argument against abortion?

So did the bone scan confirm that you are permanently injured?

How has this injury affected your life? Can you still run? (Just curious)

Something similar just happened to me. I was overpaid thousands of dollars -- I reported it to my employer, handed in my checks and they gave me a new one in 2 weeks. If the error is caught in the future, you are going to have to repay the money anyways. Would you want to live with that over their shoulders, knowing that: A) You can be caught and fired for not following through with an obvious overpayment of money you don't deserve. B- You will probably have to pay it back in the future if error is caught. C) You are deliberately living inconsistently with moral principles you hold to be true.

Unfortunately, I am not going to be able to make it today. Have fun.