Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

thenelli01

Regulars
  • Content Count

    730
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    11

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from Boydstun in "Coming out"   
    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future.
    I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me.
    Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come.
    Thanks again. 😎
  2. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in "Coming out"   
    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future.
    I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me.
    Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come.
    Thanks again. 😎
  3. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from Eiuol in "Coming out"   
    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future.
    I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me.
    Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come.
    Thanks again. 😎
  4. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from MisterSwig in "Coming out"   
    Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future.
    I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me.
    Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come.
    Thanks again. 😎
  5. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to softwareNerd in "Coming out"   
    So, it sounds like your parents think you're gay, or think you may be gay.
    If you confirm that you are gay, what do you anticipate their reaction will be?
  6. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to MisterSwig in "Coming out"   
    My suggestion is to catch them in a good mood, maybe after a meal on a weekend, or whenever they are most relaxed and unstressed in general, and then talk to them about it. Have a basic plan of what you're going to say and not say, but don't write out a speech if you want it to be chill. To avoid sounding like you're "coming clean," you could focus on simply acknowledging their past interest and giving them a straightforward answer. You could say something like, "You know how you've been asking me about marriage and relationships? Well, I think you deserve an answer. The fact is that I'm gay, and I just broke up with my boyfriend of several years." I don't see why it needs to be more complex than that. If they have questions, deal with them as they come. If it gets uncomfortable, just let them know that it's uncomfortable and you'd rather keep some things private.
    However, it might be worth fighting through some of the discomfort, if it's simply a matter of your personality, and not one of genuinely protecting information. Frankly, you talk about your personality as if it's something apart from you, like a standard of self to which you must be true, e.g., you need to act chill. Is that a fair interpretation? If so, it might be something to reconsider. Personally, I think of myself as the creator of my personality. I'm focused on behaving correctly in accordance with reality, not my personality. If the situation requires a non-chill response, then I'm going to get non-chill on your ass. The hard part is deciding when to express emotions and when to keep them in check. 
    No matter how you deal with your parents, I think the key is to not give them grief for being overly concerned about you. Being your parents, they are allowed to ask these personal questions. Even if they judge you from a religious perspective, just give them solid facts, don't get into emotional arguments with them, and let them come to grips with reality on their own.  
  7. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to JASKN in "Coming out"   
    Imagine a world where conceiving a gay child is a parental consideration not much different than having a boy or a girl -- it's just a fact that may or may not occur, and once known, childrearing is just adjusted somewhat. Being gay would have been in the DNA (so to speak) of your upbringing, totally normal and not with extra consideration of any kind as you grew up. A sit-down talk with anyone about being gay now would be as bizarre as "coming out" as a boy (gender politics aside).
    But, we don't live in that world yet (though it's surprisingly near). You described the current context instead yourself - your parents were/are very uncomfortable with homosexuality, enough so to be vocal about it toward their children for years. Your parents were raised in a society more hostile toward homosexuality even than your upbringing. It's baked into their brains, and now it requires of them conscious, consistent mental processes to undo. Even as a gay person, you may have had to do some of that yourself. And that is not easy, and is a lot to ask of someone, even if it's the "just" thing for them to do.
    So, I would say cut your mother some slack. Having a conversation with you about being gay is probably part of her trying to become OK with the idea of gayness herself, which is a positive step in the right direction. She cares enough about you to try to undo her lifelong viewpoint toward gays, and all of the associated mental habits that went along with it.
  8. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to StrictlyLogical in "Coming out"   
    The truth is the truth no matter what it is.  It is not casual, dramatic, or clean.. it just is the truth.   Share the truth IF you WANT to share your truth, and because you want to share that truth.
    You are who and what you are and your parents want to know and be a part of that because they love YOU.
    You don't want to feel like you are "coming clean"?... certainly you have done nothing wrong by being you... but you have not let people in... you may have consciously evaded or misled others by silence...  the world is a scary place and being vulnerable with the people you love is not easy... but if you to accept now that what you have done in the past is no longer acceptable, that you can and should be braver, more honest and more authentic.. then in a sense you are coming clean.. not only to your loved ones but with yourself.
    Sitting your parents down to tell them the truth about you because you love them and they love you and because you want your relationship with them to grow in honesty and depth... well, there is nothing "casual" about it... it is deeply and fundamentally important if your relationship with them is important.. and coincidentally sitting your parents down to have a good heart to heart is completely natural for a loving nurturing relationship.
    Don't let your "style" get in the way of being the honest earnest you.  Dramatic talk? Talk is talk.. if you don't want it dramatic don't be dramatic. Talk with them ... talk with everyone... tell them how much they mean to you, maybe even apologize for  giving in to fear for so long... but state that you are strong enough now to start living your authentic life and insofar as they are willing to be a part of your life you want them in it. 
    Those who truly value and love you AS YOU ARE will not bat an eye at anything you say about yourself AS YOU ARE. 
     
  9. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to MisterSwig in "Coming out"   
    There is no your way or your terms anymore. That potential disappeared, I'm guessing, a decade or so ago--certainly since the time your mother started asking. Just tell her what she probably already knows, and deal with the consequences. I don't recommend bringing up your resentment of her past behavior or trying to make her feel worse than she already does. Focus on her current behavior and current beliefs. And don't accuse her of trying to control you. She spent her life trying to raise you and guide you as a kid. It's in her nature now. Besides, my guess is that she's just trying to understand you better, because she's concerned about you. Are you afraid that she'll disown you?
  10. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from AlexL in The Passion of Ayn Rand: What's the Big Deal?   
    I also finished the book, as well as Nathaniel's book, this past weekend.
    I was surprised how cultish their circle was. There were a few parts where I had to laugh out loud as it seemed ridiculous, from Ayn writing papers on other's psychology to the account given that she was "clapping" in amusement and laughing when Nathaniel used eloquent phrasing when providing his perspective on others' "psycho-epistemology" (essentially clapping at others' misery).
    Nathaniel's book seemed pretty self serving and arrogant, but also reflective and interesting at times.
    All of them acted immorally and reality won out; I felt worse for Barbara and especially Frank. Ayn, from Barbara's account, seemed unfulfilled in her marriage, especially indicated by the fact that other young men before Nathaniel noted that there was that similar type of flirting going on. It seemed like she was seeking out an affair all along, but didn't want to let go of Frank. Nathaniel, though he was very young at the start and under the influence of Ayn, kept up lies and deception all the way to age 38. He was, essentially, using Ayn and not treating her as a human by lying to her and lying to everyone else.
    The whole thing was a major rationalization. Frank and Barbara's error was agreeing to it and staying with them, though I understand why they did. Poor Frank seemed to have a miserable life towards the end, and Ayn did as well. He had a lifetime of suppressed emotions and it was especially sad to read about his last years.
    It was interesting to read about Ayn's character - she seemed to have a lot of flaws, and virtues, I would not have been able to guess by listening to her interviews, etc. It was also interesting to read how Peikoff came to the forefront of Objectivism and how he became the "intellectual heir" that ARI makes him out to be (and by his own statement) - it was almost by default, everyone else in Ayn Rand's life left her.
    It would have been interesting to hear Ayn's take on the whole thing as I bet it would give a more complete picture, especially with her dealings on Nathaniel. I was really disgusted, enchanted, and saddened at different times reading the book. It was a rollercoaster of emotions - not because I was particularly invested, but all the triumph in her life as well as all the tragedy (including for the people around her) was sometimes hard to read.
     
     
  11. Thanks
    thenelli01 reacted to whYNOT in Vox vs Speech   
    thenelli01:
    Beautifully stated.
    . ...aware of my value as a person independent of ...
  12. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from whYNOT in Vox vs Speech   
    I don’t know if calling someone a “Lispy sprite” and a “little queer” is by itself bullying, but it certainly is cruel and has the potential to encourage the behavior to be continued, especially when done by someone of Crowder’s popularity.
    As someone who is gay, growing up I had to listen to my parents, brothers, classmates, society in general, insult, dismiss people for being gay - calling them f*ggots, queers, homos - people would say how disgusting it is and how sick those people make them. It probably had an enormous effect on my sense of worth as a person growing up and certainly led me to want to stay guarded and not open up about who I was because of it. Even the other week when I heard a relative say the word “f*ggot”, it made me cringe, except now I feel comfortable calling him out on it because I’m aware of my value as a person independent of other people’s opinion of me.
    However, children/teens, by their nature, are dependent on their parents and to some extent their environment to understand their inherent value as a person. Psychologically speaking, at this stage of development and less so as they get older, they need to rely on external stimuli to understand that they matter. If you have society telling you are disgusting, worthless and less than just because you are you, it can be very damaging to your sense of dignity. Many have committed suicide because of it, and it’s absolutely tragic.
    Any cruel speech directed at someone for an aspect of themselves that they cannot control doesn’t deserve a platform and giving it a platform has the ability to encourage the bullying behavior and damage people psychologically (those who see it or are victimized by other people who are encouraged by the content).
    In this respect, I would be okay with YouTube taking down any content of this type on moral grounds. It’s below the standard that should be set for public dialog. I don’t think they have to set the standard, but if that is the standard they want to set, I think that is appropriate.
    With that said, I agree it’s a slippery slope, not well defined and they open themselves up to having to navigate through ALL of the content to monitor for expression of that nature if they want to be consistent.
    It’s actually a fairly tricky topic, as I see both sides. 
    Sorry for any typos - on my phone.
     
  13. Thanks
    thenelli01 reacted to softwareNerd in Late Term Abortion   
    The fact that things have changed and made it safer makes it even more likely that Ran would agree with full-term abortions. Also, the simple fact that she said -- albeit off the cuff -- that the line is drawn at birth. 

    I'm always a little wary of arguments that go "this is what Rand would have thought"... because its basically speculation and -- much more importantly -- it does not matter a great deal to whether the conclusion is right or wrong. So, it almost always becomes two sides contesting what is ultimately an appeal to authority. So, both sides end up arguing that they themselves are the ones who are committing that particular logial fallacy.

    Your point about more freedom necessitating more responsibility. I see it as an arbitrary statement, unsupported by any facts or reasoning.
     
     
  14. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to DonAthos in Late Term Abortion   
    No, it isn't a particularly good question. A human being is what it is: we don't define it in or out of being. The entity that is a human being one minute post-delivery is also a human being one minute beforehand; to say that it is not yet "a human life" because it fails to satisfy some ad hoc, contrived definition (in this case, because it is "connected") is a classic example of rationalism.
    There's no need to resort to such outlandish scenarios. Actual existence provides sufficient material. Conjoined twins are "connected"; according the definitions and reasoning you've supplied, neither twin is a "human life" or has rights?
    But no. It is an admitted complication for "individual rights" that neither twin is individuated, but our resolution is not that either twin has the "right" to murder its twin (because the victimized twin somehow fails to meet our definition of entity (!), or human being). Conjoined twins still have rights, because they are entities possessed of rights by their nature. In real life, a mother carries a child for some time before birth. It is a human child. The point at which that is true is not conception (where that "potential human child" is but a collection of cells, and fully the mother's to do with what she wishes), but it is true at some point thereafter.
    The proper way to reason about this has nothing to do with the umbilical cord, which is meaningless. Suppose a full "test tube" process, where there is no umbilical cord at all, no "connection." At conception, the potential child in the test tube would be a clump of cells, property, and wholly the mother's to dispose of. At some point thereafter, this would no longer be true. The cells in the test tube will have developed into a human being, and no longer be the mother's property (though the parental relationship is still special, and this special relationship persists for some time). At this point, the human child has rights and cannot be aborted. The difference is not according to placenta or umbilical cord or birth, but based on the nature of the entity itself.
  15. Thanks
    thenelli01 reacted to DonAthos in Stupid mind games people play and why   
    Through several threads, and the replies I've gotten to sharing certain personal experiences, I've come to realize that my experiences may be atypical. But I've generally had pleasant romantic relationships... And my experience is this: that women must be dealt with as individuals.

    I've never not complimented a woman (or complimented her, for that matter) according to some strategy, or because some supposed pick-up artist thinks that women are reducible to a pattern. I've treated women in this respect the way I treat anyone or anything, and have paid compliments freely when they are warranted, and refrain from them when they are not. Honesty has been my one "strategy," and it has worked out fine in my best estimation.

    Could I have had more sex over the course of my life (with certain kinds of women), had I immersed myself in strategies and such designed to seduce those kinds of women? Perhaps. Would that pursuit have made my life better? I sincerely doubt it, and doubted it at the time (which accounts in large part for why I knowingly avoided that path). I'm not sure that it would have left me as the man I am today, a man who is capable of loving and being loved by my wife in the manner that we have achieved. And that's a sad thought.

    And today I am extraordinarily happy with my wife, and I'll report that I pay her compliments regularly. It's rare that I see her and am not moved to pay such a compliment, so really my usual "strategic" consideration is just not to bore her by repeating myself constantly. But if I'm looking at the most beautiful, most wonderful woman I've ever known -- and if I'm struck by that fact constantly, over years and years and years -- what am I supposed to do about it? For her part, she's reported that she loves the compliments I pay her. But then, she's not very well-versed in seduction literature, so perhaps she just doesn't yet understand her feminine self yet?
  16. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to Eiuol in I'm seeing a girl who has a boyfriend...   
    It is difficult for me to say if it was a lie. But it's not transparent, when transparency is important to any kind of relationship. Friends or otherwise. On the other hand, being transparent doesn't have to mean telling everything immediately. When it comes to a huge conflict that would shake up your life, you might hesitate telling someone else so you can take the time to figure out what to say.
    Not to say that the girl in this case acted entirely well. I'm saying that these are redeemable moral errors. Sometimes people come along where your prior commitments should be given up. Unfortunately, this is where people go wrong. It's difficult to navigate.
    You might fear that she could "easily" do it again. But sometimes when a person does something wrong, they are less likely to repeat it. That is, if they acknowledge what they did wrong. The key factor I think is, how much room will you give people for mistakes? The girl wanting to kiss Ben, or developing a crush him, was not the mistake; the mistake was simply not telling her current boyfriend (for some people, kissing is a very ambiguous line). Our information is limited, maybe the brief period of time is a sign of impulsivity. But it also might be a willingness to make the hard decisions, even if the method of following through the decision wasn't the best. 
    But I agree that boundaries are important. Expectations starting now, and making them clear, without changing them later. This sounds like a good way to find the type of person they want to be, and can succeed at being. That's how you can prevent cases where someone turns out to be a liar, an abuser, a drug addict, a lazy bum, or goes back on their promises. It's how you can maintain relationships with people who have made mistakes, without worrying that every single instance of a moral error is increasing probability that they will do the wrong thing.
    When it comes to people I've known a few weeks, I give them some leeway, even more so if I'm extra fond of them and in a short time learned a lot about them.
  17. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to softwareNerd in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    Just stop it with these dramatics already. From your descriptions, you come across as a spoiled brat, and she's mostly tolerating your crap.
  18. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to Nicky in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    Sorry, but this whole thing stopped making sense to me. On the one hand, you are describing a situation where a friend of yours, who you have a crush on, and who's shown interest in you herself, is either having a quick fling with someone else, or is in the early stages of a relationship with someone else. Either way, not a relationship that's guaranteed, or even likely, to last.
    On the other hand, you're talking about a girl who is "unattainable", "out of your league", and regret and missed opportunity, all suggesting that there's no chance you could ever date her.
    Those two stories can't both be true. It's one or the other. Which is it?
  19. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to Nicky in Should you be friends with a woman you want, but can’t have?   
    I think you have a problem, but it's not what you think. Your problem isn't inexperience or shyness. Women don't mind that. What they mind is jealousy and insecurity. You are NOT in a relationship with anyone. You shouldn't act like you are, and while we're at it, you should also try not to feel like you are. Your jealousy is out of place. You're not in pain because of any kind of lost love (she's clearly not lost to you), you're in pain because of misplaced jealousy.
    Here are some things you shouldn't do:
    1. Do not tell her about your jealousy or any kind of pain she is causing you. It's not her problem, not her responsibility to "not hurt you", etc. Don't even entertain the thought that it's her fault in any way, no matter how many texts she sends, and what's in them. It's her right to share her life with her friends, and it is not your right to blame her for it. It's also her right to test you, if that's what she was doing (though I doubt it), and see if you can handle the idea that she doesn't belong to you. If you ask her out, be casual about it, don't pressure her or become emotional.
    2. Do not act on this pain in any way. Don't try to distract yourself with alcohol or any other high, substance induced or emotional, either. That's a way to validate it, too. You're in pain, just accept the fact and do nothing else, because it shouldn't be your goal to live a pailess life.
    3. Do not for a second think that jealousy is an unavoidable part of love. It's not. It's a symptom of a sick culture that misrepresents love, not a natural consequence of human nature.
    If you never give an unwanted emotion any validation, and take full personal responsibility for having it (never blame anyone else for causing it), that is the way to fight it, and make it subside and eventually go away.
    And, in general, don't act like you're in a monogamous relationship, in any way. She clearly hasn't rejected you romantically (the way you, kinda annoyingly I must say, claimed in the OP), and there's no reason to give up on her, but you're not in any kind of relationship with her. So do what she does: keep your options open, go on dates with whoever will go out with you, be open about it with your friends, accept their support if offered, etc.
    Prove to yourself, and to everyone else, that you are able to keep your emotions grounded in reality: she's not the center of your existence in reality, therefor she shouldn't be the center of your emotional life, either. That groundedness will take you further with attractive, confident women (who have to deal with obsessive, possessive "admirers" on a regular basis) than anything else you can do.
  20. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to KevinD in I'm seeing a girl who has a boyfriend...   
    Ben:

    That must not be a recent pic in your profile. Clearly, you've had the word "SUCKER" tattooed across your forehead.


    You do not know what another person is feeling; you only know what they tell you. (Read that statement 40-100 times until you get it.)

    When a person demonstrates in action that they have no integrity — when they are willing to lie to and deceive people whom they claim to love — why would you believe them about anything?


    It can be a challenge to remain in objective control when your feelings are overwhelming you.

    If you heard the kinds of statements coming from this lady spoken by anyone else, would they make the slightest bit of sense?

    What would it would mean to remain in a romantic relationship out of a sense of "obligation"?

    I have a suspicion that this lady is a master of having her cake and eating it, too.


    Don't tell me about a person's positive qualities when they're a deceptive liar — particularly in the romantic realm. Integrity is fundamental; to the extent she has brains and is likable, that only makes her more dangerous.

    You're sexually gone over this woman and it's frying your intellect.
  21. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from DonAthos in Late Term Abortion   
    I don't think it's fair to classify my comments as "like a red herring." It's either fallacious or not, but a quick review of the sequence of the conversation would prove it isn't. 
    Can't say the same for you though, as you have been using ad hominem attacks throughout this topic, which is partially why I haven't been so eager to respond.
    Hopefully it can be respectful and honest moving forward.
    Now regarding below and above:
    I'm positing below (and hopefully I am not redundant because admittedly I have not read through the other topic yet)
    A developed fetus has rights because of it's nature as a human being and its potential to develop into an independent, rational adult (similar to newborns). There is a point when the "thing" inside is clearly no longer just human cells, but has developed fully enough to surpass the realm of potential and now actually has the characteristics where it deserves classification as a human being. As such, it should be considered as what it is: a human being physically dependent on the mother for life. How to determine whether or not an entity is a human being is up for discussion but there have been a few suggestions in this thread that I think are worthy of debate.
    So when you say,
    "A fetus is physically dependent upon the mother's exercise of her rights. Therefore it has no right to its own life until it acts toward the removal of that dependency."
    I don't think there is a fundamental distinction (only a distinction in form) between the physical dependence via the womb and physical dependence via mother's care for a newborn. Therefore, I think your red line of obtaining rights when it gains "independence" is arbitrary. A baby's nature a week before birth and after birth didn't change significantly (I.e. in kind) and neither did it's dependence. Yes, it's separated by the mother's physical body, but it still depends on the mother's physical body to care for it's basic survival needs. It's the entity's nature that determines it's worthiness of rights, not the arbitrary distinction between womb and non-womb.
    (I'm open to arguments - but please just arguments - FYI I'm sure my arguments aren't new per se - this topic has been debated on this forum for ages in multiple threads - Once I have more time and will to read through them, I will do so.)
  22. Like
    thenelli01 reacted to softwareNerd in Late Term Abortion   
    You're right. I understand the context now.
  23. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from intrinsicist in Late Term Abortion   
    So you are in favor of the right of mothers to have a baby in an alley and leave it to death?
    I say death, because that is what will happen most likely, without any assistance from third parties. What if the mother has a baby in the desert or in a rural mountain town in Colorado, where third parties aren't around? Can we leave a baby in the snow to fend for itself because it is a 'physically independent entity' that has a self responsibility to gain 'the values it requires to sustain its own life.' 
    The baby is physically dependent on the mother because of its undeveloped nature, and the mother has a responsibility to the child (until adulthood or transfer of that duty) because she is the one who brought the child into the world. Despite what you say, babies would not be able to survive very long in this world without someone taking care of it (proof is meet any newborn and read the stories of babies that ARE left to fend for themselves - spoiler: the ending is usually tragic). The mother brought the baby into the world and, therefore, she has the responsibility to make sure its rights are protected. She cannot expect anyone else to take care of it. 
  24. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from DonAthos in Late Term Abortion   
    So you are in favor of the right of mothers to have a baby in an alley and leave it to death?
    I say death, because that is what will happen most likely, without any assistance from third parties. What if the mother has a baby in the desert or in a rural mountain town in Colorado, where third parties aren't around? Can we leave a baby in the snow to fend for itself because it is a 'physically independent entity' that has a self responsibility to gain 'the values it requires to sustain its own life.' 
    The baby is physically dependent on the mother because of its undeveloped nature, and the mother has a responsibility to the child (until adulthood or transfer of that duty) because she is the one who brought the child into the world. Despite what you say, babies would not be able to survive very long in this world without someone taking care of it (proof is meet any newborn and read the stories of babies that ARE left to fend for themselves - spoiler: the ending is usually tragic). The mother brought the baby into the world and, therefore, she has the responsibility to make sure its rights are protected. She cannot expect anyone else to take care of it. 
  25. Like
    thenelli01 got a reaction from splitprimary in Late Term Abortion   
    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. 
×
×
  • Create New...