The Lonely Rationalist

I'm sure the question will sound stupid, but here I go: How can we know for certain that natural laws are absolute? How can I be sure that if I drop my pen, it won't fall up instead of down? How can we be sure that a law will act the same way every time? Can the concept of absolute natural laws be proved logically, or is it an axiom of existence that one must accept?

But you forget that Ellsworth Toohey was actually intelligent.

But when does a fetus stop being part of the mother? After the umbilical cord is cut? In that case, could not one morally kill the infant after it's birth, but before the cord is cut? Also, what about when the fetus is viable within the mother's womb? If it no longer needs the mother for it's survival, but is still connected to the mother, could one still morally end its life?

I'll begin by quoting Ms. Rand here: "Since intellectual property rights cannot be exercised in perpetuity, the question of their time limit is an enormously complex issue . . . In the case of copyrights, the most rational solution is Great Britain’s Copyright Act of 1911, which established the copyright of books, paintings, movies, etc. for the lifetime of the author and fifty years thereafter." "The subject of patents and copyrights is intellectual property." So my question is: Why can patents and copyrights not exist indefinitely? I always assumed the person who created something could keep it for his whole life, and after death could will it as any other property to an heir(s).

Full Disclosure: Like I said before, I have been a member of the religious right until about 4 months ago, so that's why I am still having trouble with this issue. Who determines what a human "Being" is? A severely handicapped person can not exist independently, nor can an infant. They both are totally dependent on others. Why do they have rights, but an embryo does not. Thanks again for putting up with me. I'm just trying to rationally figure out abortion, without mystical arguments about souls.

Are you saying that once a baby is born, it's parents have no obligation to care for and may abandon it if they decide they don't want it?

Wow, I'm happy everyone here is so helpful on these forums! Thanks again. Now, sorry for seemingly repeating myself, but I've ssen way too many definitions of what a human being is. I've heard (And yes, I was a member of the religious right for most of my life, so that's why I'm having so much trouble with this issue) that life begins when sperm meets egg, creating the DNA of a human. I've heard that it is not a human until it is born. To which I ask, if it can survive out of the womb independently, why is it not considered a human, if still in the womb? I've heard some say that it is not a human until a rational faculty begins to develop. This makes the most sense to me. So, I guess I'm asking, am I correct in assuming that it is not a human when it is conceived, but becomes a human when it's ability to reason begins to develop? Edit: Now that I think about it, if having a rational faculty is all that makes something human, is not an ape human?

But what if the fetus is viable and can survive independently? Could one still have the moral right to abort it?

When exactly does something become a human being? Upon birth? What about cases of partial birth abortion, when the embryo is developed fully as a human being, and could exist independently outside the womb, but has not yet been born?

Might I also add, I have always thought that rights applied to all living human beings, regardless of their status. Is this view contradicted by the Objectivist view of rights?

Well, as I stated, I already did look up those threads. However, most of them said that the fetus IS a life, but it still has no rights. And that it what I'm trying to figure out.

*** Mod's note: Merged into earlier thread. - sN *** Hello there. This is my first post on this forum. I'm a relatively new Objectivist. I read The Fountainhead in July, and loved it so much I read Anthem and Atlas Shrugged immediately afterward. I quickly adopt Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism, and find myself much more philosophically fulfilled than I was before. But I have a question about abortion. I have read many of the typical Objectivist essays and stances on this, I have read Ms. Rand's quotes on the topic, and I have read threads on this forum about abortion, yet I still do not understand the rationale behind Objectivists's support of abortion. I have seen that, primarily, Objectivists say that a fetus or embryo is indeed a life, but that is irrelevant to the debate, and more concerns whether or not the fetus has rights. So, please could someone explain to me exactly what Objectivists believe about the rights of a fetus and an embryo? And I would also like it if someone could explain to me why a living (Human) being does not automatically have rights. Thanks a lot. I have been studying Objectivism like mad, and this is the one major issue that I am really struggling to agree with Ms. Rand on.