Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Grames last won the day on July 11

Grames had the most liked content!

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Recent Profile Visitors

19627 profile views

Grames's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)



  1. Children can be and are neglected, abused and murdered in violation of every principle of how any person ought to be treated. But because no contract law pertains nothing is to be done? I am grateful for the innovation in human society that is criminal law.
  2. The growth into full adulthood is gradual, but the moral and legal status of being a person with certain rights obtains at birth. "Persons not the mother don't have a proper right to control the pregnancy until the fetus is capable of sustained life outside the womb with or without artificial support." Technological advancements in medicine may make possible sustained life outside the womb with artificial support earlier and earlier in the pregnancy. Making the rights of mothers dependent upon not just technology but some judge's or legislator's assertion about that technology is not good practice of law. This is in principle far more amenable to restrictions on abortion than I would ever be. It also assumes that technology is provided but is silent on who provides and pays for it. How can you reconcile this position with what I thought was presented as an intransigent pro-abortion rights position?
  3. The value judgement here is that human life and human rights are good and valuable and should be nurtured and enabled to flourish. The value judgement applies immediately after the identification has been made that a human life is involved. Making the identification depends upon the definition of the concept. Having a clear definition of the concept using other concepts (genus, differentia, essential attribute) versus using an informal ostensive definition of what it means to be an actual living human is the difference between the Objectivist position and other positions.
  4. I disagree here, this is a conceptual identification. Any emotions follow after the identification is made.
  5. Birth can be a long drawn out affair but compared to the months preceding it is short. Please pardon the imprecision. To stop lawyers from claiming that birth hasn't happened so long as a toe remains inside it should to be counted from the first emergence of any body part.
  6. Given Rand's theory of concepts and Peikoff's speculation that induction is concept-formation in action then an explanation is available. The gradual growth and maturation of a single fertilized ovum to a born infant that is recognizably human with arms and legs, fingers and toes, a face and blood, breath and brain is similar to the "problem of the beard" that I described earlier this thread, or a version of the "ship of Theseus". At a certain point some internal epistemological threshold is crossed and a moment of recognition or induction occurs and the identification is made "that's a person". I don't think this under one's voluntary control. (Gathering evidence is under one's control but not the threshold of enough evidence.) Earlier abortions are better because the less recognizably human the fetus is then the less likely it would be automatically identified as a person by the woman involved, or the father or the care providers. Then there is the issue of differing levels of knowledge and context. There is the naïve or layperson perspective and then there is the scientifically and philosophically informed perspective. The layperson will typically have an unidentified premise of an ontological substance theory, that whatever makes up a person an infant has it and so must the fetus 5 minutes or 5 weeks before birth. A more informed perspective that has identified human consciousness as man's distinctive attribute and further that consciousness is a relation not an intrinsic attribute will understand the full significance of the moment of birth, that human consciousness only begins at the moment of emergence into the world. To the naïve perspective the informed perspective can seem just a cold-blooded and hard-hearted rationalization using those tricksy words. The bad news is that everyone has a subconscious mind that makes naïve automatized emotional associations, it is the default understanding of the world (hence "naïve"). So which perspective should write the law governing abortions? Should the mass of laypersons be ruled over by a law they do not understand and so cannot value? Should the mass of laypersons be sent to abortion re-education camps so they can learn to think correctly? Should we fight a war over abortion rights for the sake of uniformity in the name of the universality of rights or let people sort themselves out state by state? The only way forward is education, a task which never can end as every new infant is born ignorant of everything.
  7. Don't have sex with strangers. Link sex and romance by reserving sex for romantically significant others. Use contraception with planning and conscientiousness. Don't rely on abortion as contraception. These points are what pass for common sense among normal people.
  8. There is no such principle, I am not myself anti-abortion. Ridicule of sluts is the only measure I advocate against self-righteous sluts. I also have no heartache over seeing states block elective abortions in the last trimester. The earlier the abortion, the better. "Safe , legal and rare" was a good catchphrase for abortion policy goals back in the Clinton years.
  9. Even between sexual partners in a committed relationship most sex does not result in pregnancy, so this is not plausible. However a good heuristic for whether or not one should have sex with someone is if a pregnancy would be completely unacceptable then don't have the sex. I confess, I think sluts are hilarious. Sluts and drunks (similar mentality) ought to be ridiculed at every opportunity. Not just because ridicule can be entertaining but it can be persuasive to get people to change their behavior.
  10. That was not what I said, merely that it would be reasonable and understandable if a state were to bar gay adoption for the protection of children. I have since gained some finer grained knowledge of possibly the real problem: children with genetically unrelated male stepparents in the household have a many times greater risk of being abused or killed (not just the murdered but also those getting into danger due to less parental attention). The phenomenon has been named the "Cinderella effect". People have sex for all kinds of reasons, including poor reasons. It is simply not the case that sex is always indicative of someone pursuing pleasure and love. Did I make a list of preventatives? No, and why should I when the topic is abortion and contraception had already failed or was absent? Contraception is used by people of both sexes with some sense of responsibility and an extended time horizon in their thoughts, not the kind of anti-conceptual and range-of-the-moment mentality I was criticizing. Perhaps you simply are not aware of potential scale of the problem. Most abortions are due to this mentality in action. Abortion would be a less controversial issue if few cared about it. If only the 7.7% abortions with valid reasons took place there would a lot less people paying attention to the issue. Of further interest on this sidebar is Gay Parenting: Promise and Pitfalls | Dave Rubin & Dr. Jordan B. Peterson
  11. "Avoiding the consequence" here is actually the mental evasion before the sex happened. A series of range-of-the-moment reactions is no way to go through life.
  12. I am glad I was able to provide you the opportunity to repeat a favorite sermon but it isn't responsive to the point I made. Some, not all, but some of the energy on the pro-abortion side comes from women who really shouldn't be getting pregnant in the first place. I used the term slut-shaming and the responses come back about wives and fiancés. One night stands and casual friends-with-benefits sex are the acts that identify a slut. Those are not acts compatible with self-esteem or pride. Am I wrong?
  13. The reason automobiles exist and the reason to get one is for transport, not killing the driver. The reason the reproductive faculties exist is reproduction and it is not a malfunction when reproductive activity results in reproduction. Taking a breath of clear air results in respiration. Eating good food results in digestion. Exactly where is the controversy? To follow on with more biological examples, taking a breath of foul air does not result in respiration but a coughing fit and an urgent need to move toward good air. Eating rotten or poisoned food (even if it tasted good) does not result in digestion but regurgitation, sickness or even death. So then if sex, even good sex, results in an unwanted pregnancy then the maybe the sex wasn't such a good idea after all regardless of how it felt at the time. That is my modest proposal submitted for the consideration of all and sundry.
  14. They are really against sexual promiscuity, not sex itself. That is like the difference between being in favor of selfishness in ethics versus being in favor of acting like Genghis Khan or a later Ottoman Empire Sultan.
  • Create New...