Dominique

Oooh cool, Thanks for the tip. I looked him up and I found this Should keep me busy for a while. Maybe I'll actually be good at math (and science) when I get back to school-now that I can understand the why of it. (Edited to add science to the equation)

Thank you for the responses. It is a little clearer now. Why then do countries deem citizenship now? To appropriate their hard earned dollar I guess? (Bastards )

I know what you are talking about. It's essentially the progression of "post-modernism" infiltrating all areas, like a virus of nothingness (ever seen the Never Ending Story ?). When a friend was trying to get me interested in Physics, esp. Quantum Mechanics, I blew him off and made fun of him because it sounded like religion to me even then (the way he described the "New Physics"). Then, because he has been a friend for a very long time, I tried to give him (and the other *experts* who he's based all this on) the benefit of the doubt. Mostly (as I understand it) the manifestation comes with to a head with the many-worlds theory, or many-minds, but you can see the influence all throughout, although admittedly I am a layman. I eventually stopped talking to this friend (we had nothing in common anymore) but I was still wondering what the hell was the deal with all this weird science. I guess it's just another leak in the sinking ship. Luckily Stephen Speicher showed me a rational explanation for the same QM phenomenons, and for now I'm holed up with my Objectivism books and leaving the weird science for when I go back to school. Anyway, my friend did mention that he wanted science to be his religion, which I thought was a joke until I tried to seriously follow his reasoning.

I suppose the issue I had with it is that the act itself is just an act, and the morality of the person would rest on that person and their premises. But the act itself cannot be moral or immoral (once we have decided it is a *right*). Sex is not immoral, but somone who is themselves immoral can use sex in all kinds of immoral ways. It doesn't change the nature of sex. It doesn't make sex itself moral or immoral. It is arguing over the context. In some cases having breast implants or drinking alcohol can be done immorally. But in and of themselves-drinking alcohol and getting breast implants are not immoral acts. I'm thinking too that murder is definitely immoral. To harm another person is within no one's *rights*. However, when it is done in self defense, it is not only a right, but it could be considered moral. Because of the ties between murder and abortion in the mainstream hoopla arguments, I am concerned with abortion being linked to *immoral like murder*, when done in an immoral way, which I don't think it would be, but in the example the general provided, where the girl had the abortion to punish her boyfriend-that's an awful lot like what it sounded like, even though she really would just be refusing to bear his children, which might actually be more moral of a choice in the long run. Does that make sense? Or am I still off base here? (Edit-Thank you Rational Cop-just saw your post, that's what I was after I think)

I'm tempted to say that the girl should have the rights from the time she is able to concieve, but it brings up an interesting issue which I was kind of trying to bring up previously in this thread, which is how rights progress for children. If they can't get tattoos, get their ears pierced, or have other medical procedures unsupervised, what differentiates abortion? I suppose in a private system, it would be up to the doctor to set his own limits, and since it is an elective surgery would not be considered an initiation of force so the govt wouldn't interfere. After all, you don't go to jail if you manage to find someone who will tatoo or pierce you underage, but the provider takes the risk of liability.

Perhaps I was confused because it seems that saying that abortions are immoral in some instances, sounds like saying the person shouldn't be *allowed* to have it. I was thinking of the issue of abortion as separate from it's causes, which I suppose it can't be entirely. And as long as no one is doing the deciding for the girl I suppose judgement certainly can be passed on her. However what I meant was that no one can decide for her. I misspoke.

What about running for President? How would we distinguish who had entered the country illegally to spy? If no one is a citizen, then anyone is a citizen, and there are no levels of security for who can hold what job position. What sort of screening would we offer instead? Also, if the government is pay voluntary, it seems only right that their duties are only required for those who pay into them. It seems to me like that might be a basis for citizenship, except that I can see several ways off the top that it would end up another way of exploiting people and using force.

I would do jury duty in a heartbeat if it paid better. I find it to be an interesting chance to participate in the administration of justice. I see nothing wrong exactly with our current jury system, and if I made a full days wage at it (what do they give you now $18-come on) I would be more than happy to take a break from my normal work to participate. As it is last time I was called I was a waitress, who very likely might lose my job fo missing shifts (they say it's illegal to get fired for attending jury duty-yeah right, not if you're a waitress) so I was unable to stay for the trial. It would have been a sacrifice in that instance, but if I had the free time, or they offered a price to make it worth my time, then it would not be a sacrifice.

The issue here is the woman's rights over her own body and no matter her personal choices and what you think of them, and whether you want to debate the morality of each individual choice she has made leading up to her decision of whether or not to have an abortion, it never gives you the right to decide for her what she should do, or for anyone else to for that matter. It does not give you the moral high ground to pronounce some abortions morally "right" and others "wrong" You cannot say, it is morally right in these circumstances, but morally wrong in these, but should still be unilaterally legal. What you are offering here is arbitrary advice. It is of no value to the discussion of the morality of abortion. It is a personal preference you have for the habits of certain women. I quote Ayn Rand again: "Abortion is a moral right-which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?" ["Of Living Death" TO Oct 1968]

A woman's individual reasons are no one's business but her own, and those who she brings into her confidence. They certainly do not have a bearing on the morality of abortion, since the very issue is her right to choose on any grounds and under any terms. The generalizations made about "why anybody would put themselves in that position" are arbitrary to this discussion. Abortion could be argued as the acceptance of personal responsibility, it is all about context, and in such a personal matter as elective surgery, I hardly think it's appropriate. Other issues, such as promiscuity, birth control, birth defects, abuse, poverty, drug-addiction, career, illness etc. have no bearing whatsoever on the morality of abortion as a legal right, and even then only the woman herself can make the ultimate final decision. For everyone else but the woman it is mere speculation.

Thank you for responding. I pretty much came to the same conclusions myself, and I have no problem accepting the logical outcomes of this reasoning across the board. I don't think there is any instance that I can think of where it falls apart. Even in the sci fi future

I was going to reply to her post with the fallacies pointed out one at a time, but got bored and ditched the idea I'm pretty convinced that you can't. I believe they already have. How about if we move the discussion to another focus, and not allow the tangents by not acknowledging the obviously arbitrary? I think it is clear that the issue of rights for the unborn is clearly in violation of the "right to life" concept and so cannot exist. Is there any instance where anyone sees a contradiction between this application of the "right to life" and other circumstances? Could biology ever change anyone's mind about the "right to life" and when it begins?

Ok, thank you. Most of that was all cleared up rather easy. I was just wondering what the basic positions were. I agree with what you said to the letter, I guess it is just hard to get my mind around some of the details. I also haven't discussed or read much regarding the details I asked you, so my initial impressions were just that, and I'm thankful to you for clarifying

I will agree with this suggestion, and then ask: Is libel and slander excused if done in the name of satire? Or perhaps first we need definitions of terms: libel: A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. The act of presenting such material to the public. slander: A false and malicious statement or report about someone. satire: A literary work in which human vice or folly is attacked through irony, derision, or wit. The branch of literature constituting such works. See Synonyms at caricature. Irony, sarcasm, or caustic wit used to attack or expose folly, vice, or stupidity. satire n : witty language used to convey insults or scorn; So is it not libel and slander if there is not a measurable negative influence on the person's reputation, or if the person is not living?

I agree with this at first blush. However: 1)What if, for instance, women started having babies and selling them to the highest bidder. Doesn't there need to be some objective arbitrator in the process of transferring guardianship? 2)What if someone decided to buy a bunch of children and make them work? 3)What keeps this person from adopting, especially if the mother is fully consenting because he is paying her nicely? 3)Is he entitled to do so as long as he doesn't physically harm the children? Or are there more specific guidelines about initiation of force against children? 4)What also comes into my mind is of course abuse. Then I imagine that the government would interfere on the child's behalf (as they do now) and would take responsibility for the placement of the child with a legal guardian (as they do now). Is that agreed? If so, then my issue as to the rights of guardianship-is whether there are objective standards which would be made into law as to what rights of the child the guardian could not infringe upon. Would they stay very similar to laws now? Would there be a need for a government child protection Agency? Also, what rights does the guardian have as far as selling their children to the highest bidder at any time they please? Essentially, I want to know the phases of the "right to life" from childhood through adulthood.

I agree entirely with this position, and find it to be consistent with Objectivism and also a practical application of the "right to life" between men and women. A woman shouldn't have to consult a man about her decisions regarding her own body, and a man should not be required to support a child financially when he was not consulted on the decision of whether or not to bring it into the world. Again, I agree with this, and it brings up for me (though this is proabably a discussion for another thread but maybe not) the issue of Adoption and whether that is also at the sole discretion of the parents, because as I understand it now the government intervenes and screens any prospective adopters. Is this a measure of protection for the child, and so a government responsibilty? In other words, what are considered rights to guardianship and rights of guardianship (in other words, the rights of the child vs the rights of the parent)

Please address the quotes I provided for evidence of where the scientific understanding of the development of the fetus even figures into the equation. The issue you are not addressing here is the "right to life", and why you believe it pertains to the unborn at the expense of the mother, why she should forfeit her life to that of an unborn entity. Do you hold that Sex=Baby and that if a woman is "irresponsible" enough to engage in sex when she does not want to have a baby then she ought to be made to suffer the consequences of carrying a pregnancy to term no matter the personal sacrifice it would be to her, no matter the effect on her body, on her career, and her future? If so why? If not, can you see the contradiction in your position?

I am interested. I agree with the three points, and only would like you to elaborate on point three, as I see that as a fertile (pun intended) topic of discussion. Does this mean that if a woman decides to have the child on her own, she cannot hold the father financially responsible no matter what DNA tests show or whether he signs he name on the birth certificate (or does him claiming fatherhood on the birth certificate count as a contract with the child that he will support it)? If a man marries a woman who already has a child-would he be required to support it, and or to continue supporting it after dissolution of the marriage (if the marriage was dissolved)?

Also besides that thread there is one about Objectivist Jokes which might help to shed light on the issue of humor. I think this is interesting and needs to be discussed more, because I think humor can be very important, but certainly it is important that one not just laugh off everything, as was mentioned in the Fountainhead (will quote when I can) that some things, such as the meetings Toohey organized could be laughed off as irrelevant or ludicrous wastes of time, when in fact there was a sinister motive. It is important to be aware of the consequences of such things, as bad ideas are often smuggled in and perpetuated under the guise of humor.

No one is questioning that Objectivists can disagree, but there was a previous thread on this subject, which Sherlock participated in, and due to her behavior there, I responded the way I did to her post here. I personally have a definite interest in discussing this matter as it pertains to Objectivism, since I think it is fundamental in regards to "right to life" and "identity" and several other issues I want to learn about. However I do not wish to get caught up in the most trivial of the sign-holding-bumper-sticker-protest shenanigans.

Certainly, I was just trying to make it clear what Ayn Rand's position was, since it is clear that Sherlock is not discussing this with any sort of Objectivist premise. If she would like to advance why, even if the embryo was a human being with a separate right to life, that it should be allowed to take precedence over the rights of the mother, as I asked her to do in the previous thread on this subject, then I think that would promote more productive discussion, rather than just having her list repeatedly the same arguments that have been addressed and explained ad nauseum in the last thread. But that's just my opinion, I personally am not interested in debating the issue unless there is some consideration for Objectivism involved in it. There are Abortion debate forums that cover these standard arguments in depth.

Sherlock, please see the first post of this thread which clearly states: And keep in mind Ayn Rand's statements regarding abortion, clearly stated under the heading for Abortion in the Ayn Rand Lexicon: (Edited by me to fix some spelling errors and to make the quotes more complete. They are still shortened by me to save space, but I believe they are still contextually accurate. The full versions can always be read Here )

( I hope no one minds if I add more. I am an avid quote collector ) "If you want to be respected by others the great thing is to respect yourself. Only by that, only by self-respect will you compel others to respect you."- Fyodor Dostoevsky "An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come." -Victor Hugo "That's the way things come clear. All of a sudden. And then you realize how obvious they've been all along." -Madeleine L'Engle

The two or three people I have spoken to have "tsk tsked" and treated me as some kind of misguided child, telling me I had some growing up to do if I really believed there was an objective reality. They were all so positive that reality is subjective, and can never be known, that they claimed I was "sweet to be so idealistic" or things of that nature and it was really distressing, how easily they gave up. All three had college degrees, one a law school grad who wrote a thesis paper on Kant.

Yes, I find it to be that way with many words, which is something new for me to learn and should help me to write with greater clarity, by getting into the habit of defining how I am using a particular word within the context I am using it. More than happy to when I'm at home. This is helping me to understand the books much better, and I already liked and understood them.