kesg
-
Posts
89 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by kesg
-
-
First of all, to get the unpleasant bit out of the way, your comment about "Ayn Rand said so and that's that" was definitely an insult to your opponents in this argument, and I don't see how it could have been intended otherwise. This is your only warning about that: no more such remarks will be tolerated.
Now, let me say that I sympathize with you on wanting to argue about the late stages of pregnancy. I was of a similar mind for a long time. (Thankfully, the excellent and non-circular arguments made by several people in this thread have helped me finally to see clearly that the philosophical issue of being as a physically independent entity is fundamental to any scientific considerations, and that that line is objectively drawn at birth.) But let's put an end to this viability nonsense right now.
If you are looking for a place to draw an objective line between a potential and an actual person, viability is the first consideration you should dismiss. Viability today does not mean that the fetus is biologically independent: its lungs, perhaps heart, and other vital organs are not yet functioning on their own, and if it is removed from the womb it can only be kept alive in a complex piece of technology--an incubator--that performs several vital functions, such as breathing, for it. A hundred years ago, the point of "viability" was not where it is today. And a short time before that, "viability" and birth were practically the same point (which is why there was no such concept as "viability" in this context until relatively recently). And in the not-too-distant future, "viability" will be the moment of conception--scientists will be able to grow a fertilized egg into a human being without the need of a mother's womb at all. Surely you wouldn't then say that a fertilized egg or a zygote or an embryo is objectively an actual human being? The question then would be, "Viable--at whose expense?" If you think that a fetus has rights, fine: let it exercise them. Rights are freedoms of action, not claims on the lives of others. To expect the state, or even the mother who does not want the child, to support its life against their will is a violation of their rights. Since legitimate rights cannot conflict, there is an obvious contradiction here. How do you resolve it?
Stephen Speicher has already addressed (and refuted) your points about a fetus being "a separate living entity" "even though it is physically connected to its mother." I suggest you reread his posts on that issue. Although frankly, it seems obvious to me that the phrases I have quoted from you there are a blatant contradiction in terms.
If you want to argue that there is some point other than birth at which to objectively draw the line between a potential and an actual human being, you're going to have to provide evidence of it by defining what an actual human being is, giving objective reasons for that definition, showing how the alternative criterion you have selected fits that definition, etc. And viability isn't going to do it. I don't think anything besides birth will. The issue of having human DNA that you've mentioned certainly won't (every cell of my body has human DNA but that doesn't make each of them a separate living entity with rights, and the fact that the fetus' DNA is different from its mother's makes absolutely no difference if you keep in mind any rational definition of "entity"). Your best shot would be when the specifically human areas of the brain begin to function, but I don't think anymore that even that will do it.
Given your refusal to respond rationally to points made by Stephen Speicher, RadCap, and others, I cannot blame them for dropping out of the discussion with you and this will be my only post on the matter unless you respond intelligently (i.e., acknowledging my actual points). I hope that you will.
I had prepared a long response to this post, and just as I was about to finish it I accidentally deleted it. I don't want to spend another hour or two attempting to recreate what I wrote. Besides, I need to leave here for a few hours. So let me give you the short version instead (I'll elaborate if and when requested later today):
1. I disagree with everything you said in the first paragraph. Moreover, it is personally offensive. I have already explained myself in an earlier post. I don't think I insulted anyone, and I know I didn't intend to insult anyone. Period.
2. I strongly disagree with your mischaracterizations of the previous posts, all of which speak for themselves on who said or argued what to whom at various points in the thread.
3. I strongly object to your statement at the end that you "hope" that I will stop refusing to respond rationally to my opponents -- this is like asking me when I will stop beating my wife. I have been totally rational in this discussion, and my posts, again, speak for themselves.
4. I take very strong exception to the patronizing tone of your post. I have been studying and thinking about Objectivism and Aristotelian philosophy longer than you have been walking the planet. So don't patronize me.
5. I disagree with the explicit or implicit double standard that you guys seem to be applying. If anyone deserves a warning here, it is Stephen and RadCap -- not me.
At a minimum, instead of prejudging the dispute, try evaluating the evidence fully, objectively, and impartially. Then please either apologize to me for jumping to a totally unwarranted conclusion. Either that, or give me the courtesy of an explanation of sufficient detail that I can respond and defend myself.
6. The overall tone of your posts leaves me even more concerned that you, as an adminstrator, are incapable of judging this dispute objectively and impartially. Plus, I don't respond well to intimidation, especially when it is based on baseless claims.
7. On the merits, I'm not totally sold on viability as the starting point, but it does seem to be the biological milestone at which, in Leonard Peikoff's words, the potential becomes the actual. It is certainly the point by which even Ayn Rand admitted that the abortion question becomes arguable. The fetus is a separate entity even though connected to the mother in the same sense that a caboose is a separate entity even though it is connected to a train, or you are a separate entity from your daugher even when you hold her hand while crossing the street.
-
Ah - so straw men are rational.
Thank you for making explicit the reason to now ignore you.
My disagreement was with your accusations that I had made any logical fallacies, not with the notion that straw man attacks are "not rational."
Incidentally, this response is itself an example context-dropping, which is a type of logical fallacy according to Objectivism.
-
LOL - that is why it is not in "quotes". That is my 'translation' of what you posted.
You simply dont want to have to acknowledge a logical fallacy you made. Instead of doing so, you would rather derail an entire conversation.
NOT rational.
Obviously I disagree. This is going nowhere.
-
'I will respond to you if you don't point out the fact that my initial response to your post had nothing to do with your post, yet I made it seem like it did.'
In other words, you will deign to address my idea so long as I don't point out the fact that you made a straw man - and then claimed you didn't. Sorry - I don't sanction logical fallacies for the sake of a conversation with someone practicing irrationality.
I have conversations in order to identify reality - I don't ignore reality in order to have conversations.
I didn't say what you are quoting -- you know, the part just above the part where you accuse me of attacking a straw man.
-
Ah - so you simply choose to IGNORE my post. But you wanted to have your cake and eat it too. So you QUOTED my post, but then actually addressed an idea DIFFERENT from the one I made. In other words, you made it LOOK like you were responding to my post, when in fact you were not.
Perhaps you would care to actually RESPOND to MY ideas instead of engaging in such diversionary tactics.
Please rephrase your question in some form other than "when will you stop beating your wife" and I'll do my best to answer it. What specific ideas do you want me to respond to?
-
"It does exist inside the womb. It isn't a question of existence versus non-existence, but existence in one place versus existence in another place."
Are you PURPOSEFULLY ignoring the context YOU established and to which *I* responded:
"and it can exist OUTSIDE the womb" (emphasis obviously mine).
Or did you just forget your post, even though it was right above mine, and I even quoted it IN mine (thus EXPLICITLY establishing the context of MY statement)? The latter seems highly unlikely. Which leaves a rational person wondering WHY you would purposefully create one very big straw man.
Neither.
-
A few years ago you publicly called Peikoff and myself names over arguments with which you disagreed. Someone has mentioned that you may have changed your mind about your assessment of those arguments, but you have never apologized for what you said nor have you acknowledged to me that you changed your mind. So, pardon me if when you say about yourself that if "I have made a mistake, I'll let you know. I promise," that I remain skeptical.
The person you mentioned is absolutely correct. I have re-assessed a great many things since four or five years ago when I think what you are referring to actually happened back on HPO. I really regret some of the things I said, and of course I hope that others do, too.
-
"Biologically, the viable fetus is human just before birth; e.g., it has human DNA, human organs, a human brain, etc. and can exist as a human outside the womb. "
"Can exist" is metaphysically different from "Does exist"
It does exist inside the womb. It isn't a question of existence versus non-existence, but existence in one place versus existence in another place.
-
-
For instance, assuming your argument were true, how would you respond to the following. By justification of the concept of rights, one man's rights cannot logically or physically conflict with the rights of another. Yet, by your argument, the right to life of the fetus would conflict with the right of a woman to her own body. Say that the woman takes a certain medication designed to attack the fetus growing within. By your standard -- the fetus as an actual human being -- you would have to restrict what the woman could do with her own body. But, valid rights do not conflict with the valid rights of others. Your view then implies a fundamental contradiction regarding the basis of rights.
Indeed, to be perfectly consistent, you would then have to argue that the woman should be prosecuted for murder.
Let me ask you a question here about your hypothetical. At what point in the pregnancy is the woman taking the medicine, and for what purpose?
Generally, I don't think that any issue regarding rights even comes into play until the point at which the fetus becomes viable (if not later). At this point, the mother has rights, the fetus arguably has rights, and the mother has, by allowing the pregnancy to proceed up to this point (we are talking approximately six months into the pregnancy, i.e near the end of the second trimester) without getting an abortion, assumed parental obligations -- the same parental obligations that govern relationships between parents and their children after they are born. Even here, there is an exception: the mother should have an absolute right to get even a late-term abortion to save her own life.
-
Rights apply to the category human being. By "human" I simply mean a member of the species Homo sapien,...
Okay...
Here is where you lose me. Biologically, the viable fetus is human just before birth; e.g., it has human DNA, human organs, a human brain, etc. and can exist as a human outside the womb....and by "being" I simply mean a physically independent entity.The fetus is a physical part of a woman's body, an organism whose radically different physiological structure makes it biologically dependent on the physical system of which it is a part. For instance, the fetus lacks functional lungs and intestines, and it derives its oxygen and nutrients from the placenta. This changes when the first breath is drawn at birth, when the respiratory circulation is shunted from the placenta to the lungs.Physical independence, biological independence, is an essential and fundamental characteristic which differentiates a fetus from a human being.
You lose me here, too. Most important, the fetus is certainly physically attached to the woman's body, but it is not a part of her body, but, biologically, a separate living entity, with its own separate skin, brain, blood, organs, bones, DNA, etc. [Note: Again, I am talking only about a viable fetus -- I am not suggesting that prior to this time, the fetus is anything other than a potential human being even if it is a separate living entity.]
Now, I will agree that physical independence is essential to distinguishing a fetus from an infant.
However, I still think, as Ayn Rand suggested, that "one can argue about the later stages of a pregnancy." When it comes to the earlier stages, I totally agree with what she wrote. -
I would say that what differentiates an Objectivist from others is a person's understanding and acceptance of Rand's theory of concepts as set forth in ITOE, which leads directly to the view of objectivity set forth in Chapter 4 of OPAR. In my opinion, Ayn Rand was essentially hinting this conclusion in her June 20, 1958 journay entry (see Journals of Ayn Rand at page 699-700).
-
The specific date at which a baby ought to be considered a person is more a legal/scientific matter than a philosophical one. Diana draws the line at viability, which I don't necessarily agree with, but I don't think it's a ridiculous position to take -- nor, certainly, is it one which throws her outside the boundaries of Objectivism. (With regard to that last, by the way, you might find it useful to recall that Rand explicitly considered it open to debate whether abortion should be permissable in the third trimester..)
Exactly. As Rand herself said, "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."
-
When Betsy says:
"...birth is an obvious and clear point of demarcation as far as the facts giving rise to the concept of rights is concerned."
She offers you, not only a convinent point to draw a line, but an objective one; one which follows the rules about what may have rights and what may not; one which stays in line with the facts that give rise to rights to begin with.
So I have been repeatedly told. These are assertions, not arguments.
No. It has been repeatedly asserted, but not shown.It has been repeatedly shown that a fetus is NOT a human being, it is a part of its mother.It would be circular, if we were not giving REASONS why. The claim is not only that a a human being must be born, but that it must be born because a physically dependant object cannot be a human being--it cannot have rights. Then we proceded to give you reasons for that: the nature of rights--the nature of the facts that give rise to rights--is such that a physically dependant object cannot have them.Surely you can see how this is not a circular argument, no?
This argument is, in fact, a textbook example of circular reasoning and, more specifically, the type of circular reasoning that involves phrasing the argument so that the premise and conclusion say the same thing in two slightly different ways (i.e. saying that only born human beings have rights because only physically independent human beings have rights). Virtually every standard textbook on logic covers this variation of circular reasoning.
-
It as already been stated -- and I am waiting for an answer -- birth is an obvious and clear point of demarcation as far as the facts giving rise to the concept of rights is concerned.
I agree that birth is an obvious and clear point at which to draw a line. But so is viability. So is conception. So is the age at which the infant says its first word. We need objective criteria for where to draw the line -- not to do the equivalent of playing pin the tail on the donkey.
I believe that Leonard Peikoff correctly drew the line at the point at which a potential human being becomes an actual human being. But the question then becomes exactly when this happens. He answered "birth," but I'm not so sure he is correct. More specifically, what is the logical validation of the argument that it occurs at birth, and not, say, at viability. Merely stating that the answer is birth because at this point the infant is no longer physically attached to the mother is to argue in circles -- birth is the process of becoming physically independent of the mother.
Right. If a viable fetus is an actual human being, we are talking about two human beings with rights, not just one. The question then becomes not whether the fetus has rights, but the different question of what are its rights as against the rights of the mother.You write "the only difference I'm seeing here is his physical location" but please address what the different locations are. Before birth the baby wasn't in a tree. It was inside a human being possessing rights.After I give it my best shot, I would ask him to explain what his "non-religious reasons" are. In my experience, the person either gives up the conversation, changes the subject, or raises a silly, off-the-wall "objection."Some do, but not everyone. For example, a very bright non-religious Objectivist, Diana Hseih, recently wrote the following in her blog "Noodlefood" on March 11, 2004 : "For various reasons related to the autonomy of rights-bearers, I regard natural viability as the proper standard for abortion rights in ordinary circumstances. So on my view, should a woman have the right to allow her fully viable fetus die when it could be so easily saved? I don't know, but I suspect not. Legal parental obligations perhaps begin when that viability point is passed -- or whenever the woman commits to carry the fetus to term." Her position is certainly a minority position among Objectivists, but in my opinion it is a defensible one -- and, as far as I can tell so far, more easily defensible than many of the contrary arguments I've seen here.
If a person won't deal with such obvious distinctions as one biological entity vs. two separate biological entities, and inside a human being vs. not inside a human being, there really isn't much I can say. You can't reason someone out of a belief they didn't reason themselves into.I think this is correct -- but it works both ways. The distinctions themselves are obvious. Their relevance to when we first have rights is not.
-
An equally interesting poll question would be what book do you go back and re-read most often for clarification on various philosophical points. For me it's a toss-up between OPAR (especially Chapter 4) and ITOE, with Galt's speech a distant third -- a reflection of the fact that my primary philosophical interest has for years been in epistemology rather than ethics or politics.
-
The "physical location" of a fetus is within a woman's body, physically a part of her. That is what the fetus "essentially is," a part of a woman. At birth the "physical location" of the newborn is outside of the woman's body, a physically independent being. That is what the newborn "essentially is," a human being.
Are you ever going to directly address this fundamental issue, or do you intend to skirt around and continue to focus instead on inessentials?
I agree that the fetus is within a woman's body and even physically connected to her body, but it doesn't follow that therefore the fetus is part of the woman (in the same sense that, say, her heart or toenails are part of the woman) as opposed to being a separate biological entity with its own DNA, heart, brain, etc., although physically connected to the woman.
You are essentially trying to prove that human beings have rights only at birth by defining a human being as a newborn infant. Surely you see how circular this argument is, no?
-
Stephen Speicher wrote: This is out of sequence because I missed this post the first time around.
"I understand the part about embryos having no rights, and I understand Peikoff's argument that a potential is not an actual. The devil, however, is in the details of determining when the potential becomes an actual, either generally or more specifically for purposes of ascertaining when an actual first has rights. As for drawing this line at birth, well, Ayn Rand did say it so I guess that's that, right?"
The implication in that last comment is insulting to the many honest and intellectually independent people who have been arguing with you in regard to abortion. The fact that Ayn Rand said something is not any justification for it being right, and you would be damned hard-pressed to show that such blind acceptance of an idea was evidenced by any Objectivist here in this recent discussion on abortion. You might consider an apology for the unwarranted implication which you made.
As to the "devil, however, is in the details," I must confess I am at a loss to know just what you mean. A fetus spends nine months as part of a woman's body, and then at birth it becomes a physically independent human being. What "details" are mssing here that would appeal to an intellectual devil?
At the outset, I'm not trying to insult anyone, and I apologize if I did. I'm just trying to understand what the argument actually is.
To answer your question, the details I had in mind are that the fetus doesn't go from zygote to infant in one step. It goes through a continuous development and reaches several biological milestones along the way. For purposes of this discussion, one of the most important such milestones is viability, i.e. the point at which the fetus is sufficiently far enough along in its development to survive outside the womb. At this stage, it seems to me that, at a bare minimum, a strong argument can be made that what was a potential human being has become an actual human being. This argument gets only stronger as the now viable fetus continues its development and gets closer to the day of its birth. Also, even though it is physically connected to its mother, biologically it is a separate living entity. Thus, it isn't so obvious to me that the "potential is not an actual" argument supports the conclusion that rights begin at birth, and not at an earlier point (but no earlier than viability).
Incidentally, I recall Ayn Rand saying somewhere that the later stages of pregnancy are at least "arguable." Well, I guess I'm arguing.
-
Don, and every other Objectivist here, has argued along the exact same line of reasoning as voiced by Ayn Rand, namely that to be a human being you must first be a being, a physically independent entity. Hasn't that been made amply clear by several posters here? Haven't I provided a direct quote from Miss Rand which said just that?
Why then such the struggle to understand the argument? How much clearer could it be?
As framed, the argument is crytal clear. The problem is that it is also circular, and begs the question of why physical independence is more fundamental or essential to having rights than, say, viability. So, what facts of reality actually lead to the result that physical independence is more essential or fundamental than viability? Can someone actually list these facts here in numerical or bullet point so that we are all talking about the same thing?
-
[stephen_speicher,May 7 2004, 05:03 PM]
"Well, at the risk of asking what may be a really dense question, isn't the fetus here literally interacting with its mother?"Did you read the quote from OPAR I provided, and my discussion surrounding the issue, and Don's clarification of the circumstances under which the issue of rights arises? I summed the issue up by saying:
"Clearly, a fetus is not "interacting" in any sense of the word applicable to man, whether in a broad social context or otherwise. A fetus is simply a part of a woman's body and it does not interact in any social context with man until it is born."
Perhaps it would be helpful to first review Ayn Rand's writings, and those by Peikoff, on the reasons for and the circumstances by the concept of rights arise in the first place. Then you can either present your arguments as to exactly where Ayn Rand and Peikoff are wrong in regard to the concept of rights, or demonstrate how a parasite living within a woman's body is somehow interacting in a sense appropriate to man, and therefore deservfing of rights.
I fully understand Rand's and Peikoff's arguments regarding the facts that give rise to the concept of "rights." I have also read -- many times -- everything they have to say about the abortion issue.
I'm trying, but I am not understanding how these arguments either apply to or justify the conclusion that rights do not arise at some point prior to birth. To put my question in OPAR terms, what exactly is the reduction or proof of the conclusion that rights do not begin at any time prior to birth? For example, how do I explain to a non-Objectivist who opposes abortion for non-religious reasons that the fetus has no rights, say, a week or two before birth? I don't see the reduction. Maybe I'm blind, but then again maybe there is nothing to see.
-
A person first has rights the instant he becomes a person -- i.e., when he is born.
Before birth the fetus is not a separate person and after birth it is.
The problems I see here is that the first point is circular, and the second point begs the question of why physical separation is the essential fact that gives rise to rights, i.e. why the newborn has rights at the moment of birth, but not in the minutes or hours prior to birth. Come to think of it, the second argument is circular as well (birth is physical separation from the mother).
-
It is not conceptual interaction which is the issue, but rather interaction between conceputal beings.
I agree with this point. However, I don't see why birth is essential to being a conceptual being. Certainly everyone here understands that at a certain point in a pregnancy, a fetus becomes "viable," i.e. surviving as a human being outside the womb. By this time, it is certainly a "conceptual being."
As for the "interaction" factor, birth changes the form of a baby's interaction with others, but not the fact of its existence. A fetus certainly "interacts" with its mother. In fact, the interaction begins long before the fetus develops a brain and becomes a concpetual being.
In sum, I don't see why the form of the interaction alone should make any essential difference. Maybe some other factor does, but not this one. If "interaction between conceptual beings" is the test for rights, then it seems that rights begin when the fetus becomes viable. However, if rights actually don't begin until birth, then something else is required. What is it?
-
I'll repeat:
If an entity has no means of even knowing rights exist, it has none.
If Entity-A's entire existence is facilitated by Entity-B, Entity-A has no rights of it's own - only the rights granted to it by Entity-B.
I don't know how to make it any more clear than this.
Well, a newborn infant who cannot even yet integrate sensations into percepts has no means of knowing that rights exist, yet both Rand and Peikoff have said that a human being has rights at birth. For that matter, the newborn is as dependent on others as a fetus is on its mother, but, again, the Objectivist view is that the newborn infant has rights. Thus, as a matter of simple logic, rights cannot be a matter of knowing that they exist or not being totally dependent on others.
So your argument isn't nearly as clear to me as it seems to be to you.
-
You've missed my point entirely. I've said rights arise because of conceptual interaction. A man on a desert island has a conceptual faculty but he does not have rights - the issue would not arise. Rights, therefore, are not coextensive with being a conceptual being - you need something more. You need social interaction with other conceptual beings.
The phrase "conceptual interaction" is totally confusing to me, except that I certainly agree that rights arise in part because we are rational beings and we interact with other human beings. But it's much more than that. For example, to say that someone has rights means that others cannot initiate force against him without also violating his rights. The following quote from Ayn Rand sums up nicely what I have in mind here: "The concept of 'rights' pertains only to action -- specifically, freedom of action. It means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men."
Anyway, the problem I'm struggling with here is that a newborn infant doesn't "conceptually interact" with anyone, either. His brain isn't yet integrating sensations into percepts, much less percepts into concepts. So how do you differentiate the newborn infant from what that infant was a few hours before he was born? The only difference I'm seeing here is his physical location, not what he essentially is.
Abortion
in Ethics
Posted
I love your sig.
I wrote all that in a big hurry after accidentally losing a much longer and more carefully reasoned response -- insert
here -- but the point I'm trying to get across is that biologically and metaphysically the fetus is a separate entity from its mother, even though it is physically connected to its mother. One isn't a part of the other, in the sense that a heart or lungs are part of the mother's body.
The more general problem here is that there is more than one referent of the phrase "human being." My opponents on this thread have essesntially used this phrase to refer to an infant (or older) by imposing a requirement of physical separation from the mother in what they regard as a "human being." I have used it in the broader biological sense to refer to a viable fetus as well. Despite our many disagreements, I think we can all agree that the correct definition of "human being" is outcome determinative to who is right on the abortion issue, because we all agree that once the fetus becomes an actual human being, it has rights.
I think that their usage is too narrow, and they think that my usage is too broad -- but logically, if we are talking about the same referent, it has to be one or the other. Is physical separation essential to being a human being, or is it merely one of the stages of life that a pre-existinghuman being goes through? That's the issue.