nanite1018

Eiuol: I am trying to work on making sense of volition and tracking it back to how it could arise physically. What I'm trying to say is that the nature of how anything could gain knowledge about anything else, an interaction, inherently limits the amount of information you can have about the conditions of the universe at any given moment in time. Because of that, if you ask "given exactly the same conditions, would he do the same thing?", you have merely a range for the conditions, and so the behavior would be different each time (since the exact conditions would necessarily vary). Physics would look at this effect of the brain as random, since there is no necessitating factor, it is "indeterministic". But if you are examining the system on the level of patterns, if you are looking at an entity not a cloud of particles, then the useful explanation isn't that it was random, but that he chose. If you ask "why did he focus rather than not?", the answer is "because he did", because he chose. If I put volition into physical terms it is randomness, but the two don't conflict because putting it in physical terms leaves out any conception of consciousness, entities (on the macroscopic level), etc. Without those it makes no sense to talk of volition anyway. Thomas M. Miovas: I know that physics doesn't talk about a whole lot of things (which to be honest is frustrating, I want to describe real objects, not ridiculous abstraction like unbendable rods and perfectly inelastic cords). You say that philosophy and physics have not yet been integrated. Well, the above description is my attempt to at least partially integrate, enough for me to both accept physics as valid and true and volition as actually existing. I have to integrate them because without that integration than it seems as though there is a contradiction in my understanding of the universe, and I am not going to live with a contradiction.

Editing my previous post seems silly since this will make it extremely long, so I'm posting another one. Humans know things because of how it interacts with them. In terms of particles, particles form a model of the particles around them based on the interactions (duh). The brain differentiates the essential characteristics and all the characteristics about the outside world that are available through interactions and the sensitivity it has to those interactions. These patterns are real, they exist, and so there really are cats, dogs, tables, chairs, people. Physics looks at the world in terms of individual particles interacting with other particles, there are no patterns, no structures, just individual things acting according to rules. Consciousness acts in terms of the interactions between massive numbers of particles. There are patterns in those interactions, and that leads to the conception of entities and attributes. When consciousness examines itself, it classifies everything in terms of interactions with other things, but one thing is at the root of all others, it affects all others but none effect it, volition. Volition is the reason why you focus rather than not. What is it in terms of how consciousness interacts with the world? Volition is the result of the nature of consciousness: it depends on interactions. If I interact with a system, I change it in a small (or large way), in order to know more about it in reference to all the other interactions. I cannot know every possible detail all at the same time about the system, its impossible because by interacting with it I change it (and myself) subtly. So when I try to explain why I did one thing rather than another I'm at a loss because of the theoretical limit of my knowledge, the only explanation is "because I did." And the fact that I can decide to focus or not to focus gives me the ability to make sure that my abstraction of all those interactions I have is actually self-consistent and logical. When I look at the processes happening in my brain they all had to be the way they were because of the way things were before, but I can never know everything about the system. So I can never predict what I'll be doing in the future, and at any time all the knowledge anyone can have about a situation allows me to do one thing or another, and until I do one of them, no one can know which it will be. If I go back and ask, "given the exact same conditions could I do something different?" the answer has to be yes, because given as much information as anyone could gather about those conditions I could do a number of things. Does that make sense? Its basically that the nature of consciousness requires it to have limited knowledge about the exact conditions at any moment, and that necessary limitation is what allows the particles in the brain to do multiple things at any given time, which can be described as "well it was random" on the particle level or "well he chose" on the level of entities and consciousness. Random in science basically means that it happened because it happened that way, and no one can know why it did. Chose means that he did it because he did it, and there is no other explanation other than he did it. Is that rational and compatible with Objectivism, or no?

To Marc K.: If espousing a view that is different from Objectivism is against the forum rules, and questioning it makes me an ignoramus or a psychotic, then how do you or anyone else who espouses Objectivism ever hope to make the changes you want to see in the world? This is, as far as I have seen, the most active forum for discussion of Objectivism on the internet. If anyone who isn't an Objectivist or doesn't automatically accept your views on everything to be correct is in violation of ettiquette and the forum rules, then you are setting up a situation which leads to not only stagnation in thought but also a closing off of the philosophy from any debate with someone who disagrees on any point. That makes the community seem hostile and I am sure turns off many who might want to discuss the philosophy. On a different note, I didn't mean my comment as an insult, simply an explanation. It isn't an insult to say that someone was mistaken or imperfect, it is an assessment of them. It doesn't make them evil or reprehensible or disgusting, especially when compared with the vast majority of people (I think Rand was an exemplary thinker and person). I am currently trying to explain why I think volition in a scientific sense is meaningless but in a philosophic sense is necessary. I understand the process by which you validate volition, but I am not certain that it is air-tight (as in my discussions on knowledge in determinism). However, even accepting that volition is an epistemological requirement, I do not see why the findings of physics that matter behaves deterministically on the most basic of levels has to cause a problem for volition on the level of consciousness, as I am currently discussing with others. I welcome your input. Hm... okay let me try to explain it a bit differently. This may be different than what I have said before, since I am (I think) changing my thinking on the subject (or at least my line of inquiry). Human consciousness is housed in the brain, every action of consciousness is an action of the brain, right? There are two different ways of looking at human consciousness then, introspectively, and through the physical sciences. One is about consciousness, the other about the brain. So, introspection, the way consciousness perceives the events of the brain (including itself), gives us ideas, beliefs, percepts, concepts, abstractions, induction, logic, etc. Science gives us hormones, neurotransmitters, proteins, amino acids, and electrical currents. Introspection is how we get to science, we have to use those tools of introspection in order to arrive at knowledge and eventually examine and understand how the brain operates. Introspectively, we find that there is a fundamental choice which cannot be ascribed a cause (in terms of consciousness), and that is the choice to focus or not to focus. The only cause we see is that we chose to do one or the other, that is, our act of choice between two possible options (since neither is necessitated) causes it. That is volition. Alright so volition is included necessarily in the basis for all the findings of science. Science examines the workings of the physical world and finds that the basic constituent parts all behave in accordance with certain equations. How do we reconcile the two is the question, since it seems contradictory at first glance. Well, my thoughts and my consciousness are patterns in material world, patterns of events, or of positions of matter, or whatever. I'm having trouble with this next part but I'll do my best. Alright, the question "does man have volition?" is the same as saying "can this pattern behave in more than one way at any given moment?" Actually, I can't go any further. At least not now. As far as I can tell, either people's actions are necessitated, or science will never explain the brain and can never do so. And if the latter is the case then I don't see the point in doing anything because the human mind is impotent. Science must be able to in principle explain everything in the universe or else its worthless, by the simple fact that the entire universe is a single unified whole. The only thing I can think of is that at the level of patterns the internal arrangement of the systems is unknown or left out, and as a result on that level of examination certain events are unexplainable (like the choice to focus or not). But I don't see how that rescues volition.

It matters where science actually says that point is, that is the proper demarcation point. If science somehow found it was at birth then okay, I'd go along with it. A fetus is not just a clump of cells if it is conscious. It is a separate entity, it is a human with consciousness, and as such has rights. Apparently, from the article I linked above, science has found consciousness arises at 30-35 weeks, which is almost term anyway. I think that is a valid demarcation point that is a proper ethical distinction. At the very least, you have to agree that the idea that "well its not even validly alive" is no longer a plausible argument if the fetus has even a rudimentary consciousness. Since it is a human consciousness, and human consciousness grants rights to adults, I should think that rights must be granted to a fetus once it has attained consciousness. And at the point where that actually occurs, there is very little additional effort required to actually give birth to an infant rather than abort the fetus. As a result, the argument that it infringes on the mother's rights seems silly.

Well I was going to look up papers on the subject but my university's library website is apparently down. In any case, as I said before, the argument is not when the brain or brain waves of a human become distinctly human as opposed to other animals, but that it does. If it didn't, then they wouldn't be any difference between humans and animals, because our brain would be the same. My point is that the point at which it differentiates is the proper dividing point between abortion being legal and illegal. Whether that happens at 30 weeks, 20 weeks, or 35 weeks doesn't really matter. If you agree that that is the proper dividing point, then it just comes down to a matter of scientific evidence as to when that occurs exactly. I'll get back to you if my library website ever comes back up. A link to a paper which seems like it would be along the lines of what I'm talking about. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal...954094/abstract Judging from that abstract, the fetus becomes conscious around the time I was discussing. Perhaps that is a more proper differentiation point that "capable of rationality" from a brain structures standpoint, I'm not sure. Apparently however, either one is very late in the pregnancy, only a month or so prior to term.

I am saying that the universe can be looked at at a number of different levels of organization. At the smallest scales, it is simply the actions of particles obeying the laws of physics, there is no volition, but at the same time there really aren't systems or entities, just all the particles in the universe whizzing around. If you look at all those particles though, you will find patterns in their movement and position, you'll see that some subsets of all those particles are different from all the ones around them, and act largely independently of them. We see the world at that level, directly. We automatically can differentiate between one entity and another, because that's the most useful level of organization for a living thing to operate on. At the level of complex patterns of particles, of entities, we can say that a living thing is something which has self-generated self-sustaining action. We can look at people and say that they have the ability to choose to focus or not to focus, because at that level of organization it is impossible to come up with a necessitating factor for that decision, and the only meaningful answer is "I chose." And you did choose, because the particles that make you up acted in a way where you ended up choosing the one path over the other, "you" selected to do it. You can't have something be two conflicting things at the same time in the same respect. Well yes "humans are volitional and deterministic" is a contradiction. But that's not what I'm saying. Determinism only exists at the level of organization where humans don't. Determinism holds true only if you don't subdivide and cut up reality into pieces and try to examine them separately, because outside factors will always impinge on the system and you won't be able to predict what they are. Determinism is only truly valid at the level of all the subatomic particles making up planet Earth (though even that must be expanded to include the rest of the solar system, etc.). At the level of subatomic particles, humans (and all other entities and complex associations of particles) don't exist. Humans, when examined at the level we perceive reality directly (the level of massive collections of particles that are arranged and act in certain patterns), are not deterministic, because we have all these factors which you can't see at that level of abstraction affecting us. Humans have choice, because we are a pattern of particles that can behave unexpectedly (at the level of patterns). Human life isn't lived at the level of particles, it is lived at the level of entities. So for philosophy, the only meaningful level of organization is that of entities, and science works to understand what makes up those entities and why they behave in a particular way. In terms of human life, entities are real, and humans have volition. In terms of science (which is about reality unrelated to human consciousness), we don't. I don't see the contradiction.

Just because we can't model it directly or have the tools to do the needed measurements does not mean that it cannot be predicted in theory. The point is that particles behave in certain ways, and if you know how every particle will behave (through equations), then you can say with confidence that the entire system of particles can be predicted given a starting state. Since the starting state can be said to be "now", then in principle the future could be predicted, or is at least determined by the way the individual particles behave. Your argument is based on the assumption that man will forever remain ignorant about the way his own mind works and the exact physical actions that occur within it. For if we were to figure it out, then determinism would be shown to in fact be the case. If all the actions of human beings can be shown to be the result of physical events in the body (most particularly the brain), and those events obey certain rules which we work out, then volition disappears. In order for that to be impossible, there must be something supernatural, a soul or magic or whatever, otherwise science and the human mind will eventually work it all out. That doesn't mean that volition isn't a meaningful way of discussing the human mind, since very clearly there are ideas (which are the same as certain patterns of particles) which have causal force (a result of the actions of the particles making it up). They are equally valid ways of discussing the same subject matter, except one is a description of physical reality and the other a description of how a consciousness perceives and deals with reality. The one is deterministic, the other volitional, and the don't contradict each other.

There's only one that matters: the neocortex. It is extremely small in animal brains (and an advanced one only found in mammals), but in humans it is much larger, as is the rest of the cerebral cortex. That structure comes into existence around the 30th week (31st of pregnancy), my only reference is Carl Sagan's book "Billions and Billions" in the chapter on abortion. There doesn't appear to be much discussion of fetal brain development online. I've looked, and I couldn't find anything particularly detailed, except several references (including the wikipedia page on prenatal development) to the development of neurons which process sensation at about week 30 as well. Doesn't seem to be a popular topic. The full development of the brain isn't completed for 30 years, but the structures required for human thought exist at 30 weeks, even if they are undeveloped. EEG tests (again, according to Sagan, I don't have another resource since this subject isn't anywhere near the top of my interest list) show patterns of brain waves which are different than animals and are human. They've done them in the womb, and that difference is seen at roughly 30 weeks. The point here though, is not that 30 weeks is the exact time this occurs, but rather that there is a point during pregnancy when it does in fact occur, and that is the proper cut-off point for abortion, as then it becomes human as opposed to a mere animal.

The fetus's brain becomes distinctly human, meaning that the brain has all the structures of the human brain and has distinctly human brain activity patterns (as opposed to any other animal), at 30 weeks. It has, at that point, the basic structures required for rational thought, it is human, as opposed to any other sort of brain. A sperm does not have those structures, it is not human. A 4 month old fetus does not have those structures, it is not human. A 1 month old (plus a normal length of pregnancy) infant has those structures and is human. An 18 year old has learned how to use those structures properly (at least, hopefully so). My point is that the brain's basic architecture is all in place at 30 weeks, it is human as opposed to anything else. After that point it is all about maturing and learning what processes to use to think in a rational manner, but the groundwork, the infrastructure necessary for that is all there at 30 weeks. Prior to that point, those structures don't exist. Man is an animal that is capable of reason, not one that uses it. A fetus at 30 weeks is capable of reason, it has the structures that are necessary. A brain-dead 30 year old or a 10 week old fetus do not, and cannot be said to be human.

Yes it sets him apart from the rest of the Universe. But, as neolithic said, it doesn't grant him magical powers that don't follow from what makes him up. Particles act in accordance with the laws of physics (note: they don't obey the laws of physics, but the laws of physics describe their behavior). We're made of particles, so our behavior is in accordance with the laws of physics. I can say that I punched someone because he grabbed my (unfortunately hypothetical) girlfriend's butt, or I can talk about the interactions of particles in the immediate vicinity. Both are correct, but the one (punching) fully describes the event in terms of human experience, so there is no reason to talk about particles. In a way, I view determinism as the scientific, impersonal understanding of the nature of physical reality, and volition as the conscious experience of that nature; just as science can say that the ball reflects certain bands of light because of various chemical properties in it and the interaction of the photons with my eye, while I could simply say "The ball is blue." Science is all about describing the nature of reality, without reference to man. But man's life isn't about science, science gives us an understanding that is necessary to use in implementing our plans and acquiring values. Man's life is about living your life, which means that what matters in that context is that the ball is blue or that I choose what I do, not that the ball has certain chemical properties or that various amino acids fold to form certain proteins and those produce hormones which cause certain sequences of neurons to fire. It is all about the context you are discussing.

Well yes, but man is a rational animal. If you don't have the capacity for rational thought yet, then you aren't really human in that sense. You have no volition when you are fresh out of the womb, you cannot choose to live or not to live. As a result, you are basically an animal, which I can kill if I so desire. The only difference between a newborn and an animal is that the newborn has the basic brain architecture that allows rational thought to be possible in the human sense, and simply needs experience and time to develop his faculties. But the same can be said for a 30 week old fetus, the only difference between a 30 week old fetus in the womb and one outside the womb is location, and since a 30 week fetus can be removed without much trouble and remain alive, and in order to abort one you have to do almost everything required to remove it anyway, there isn't any real difference between a 30 week fetus inside and outside the womb. That's why I say that at that point abortion should be banned except in cases where the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Neolithic, that blog post makes me happy I bought I Am a Strange Loop, though I haven't read it yet. I've tried describing before how the mental world of ideas can be volitional (there is a primary choice, to focus, which cannot be tracked backward on the cognitive level, and the only meaningful reason for it is "I chose") while the physical universe is not. It isn't meaningful to really concentrate on the physical universe when talking about morality, because at that level it doesn't matter. But on the level of patterns, of people and ideas and emotions, it is enormously important. In answer to Miovas's question, "what did determinists read?" etc., I read science books. Started with books on astronomy and basic intro books to physics, expanded into relativity and cosmology (I was obsessed with time and space travel, still love the subjects), then quantum physics, then theoretical stuff like string theory ("Hyperspace" by Michio Kaku when I was 10, "Elegant Universe" by Brian Greene when I was 13), and assorted material on biology and genetics as well, and all books by Carl Sagan (around 14 then). I also watched primarily science and science fiction shows, and if I wasn't reading a nonfiction science book then it was a science fiction book with the exception of Harry Potter and LOTR. All of that shaped every facet of my life and personality, including my views on philosophy (which after reading Rand, now amounts to thinking that determinism is true, rather than volition in the sense that Objectivism apparently means). Physics describes the universe, and we're part of the universe, so to have a complete understanding, physics (more properly though science in general) has to work out how consciousness and choice arise. As for their underlying premise certainly is not looking for something to replace the supernatural, I'm not even sure why you'd suggest it. Bringing order to man, absolutely, though that is a perfectly legitimate motive for scientific inquiry into the nature of consciousness. Keeping the mind wrapped in a mystical shroud of ignorance is not compatible with a commitment to rationality. Man's greatest strength is his mind, his capacity to think. Choice really doesn't matter to me, what matters is the human mind, and all it can do. We build skyscrapers, spaceships, telescopes, and new drugs. We are able to grasp the inner workings of an atom and the machinations behind the shape of the whole universe. Finding out how exactly, on physical terms, the mind can do all it does can't reduce its strength, it simply lets us understand it. Knowing that a rainbow is just refraction of light by water molecules doesn't make it any less beautiful.

Pregnancies happen for a wide variety of reasons, not when "the fetus is ready to be born." That's a silly thing to say (look at all the severely premature babies for example). Every human fetus develops at about the same rate, and so giving a time delineation for where exactly on the developmental scale they have to be is exactly what would be rational. Birth can range from the nonhuman, massively underdeveloped and without a truly human brain at 4.5 months, all the way up to the infant stage of 10 months or so. Human brain activity is at 30 weeks, almost on the button, for the vast majority of fetuses. Ectopic pregnancies would be found way before the end of the 7th month, so that's a nonissue. Even if it got to the point where for whatever reason the fetus was endangering the mothers life and the only way to save her was to kill it, then you must do so. After all, the fetus (who, by my definition, is a human) is killing the mother, thereby infringing on her rights, and so can legitimately be killed if that's the only way you can safely do it. You know about genetic defects (if you want to know that is) well before 7 months comes along. And what about women who have a premature baby that develops incorrectly, why shouldn't they be able to kill it? Its abnormal, and they shouldn't have to take responsibility for the choice they made (namely, to have a child even though there is the possibility it will be deformed somehow). If you choose to have a baby, and let it get all the way to the end of the 7th month, then you have definitely made the choice to do so even with the chance that it might be deformed. If you try to play the lottery, but don't win, you don't get to demand your money back. Plus, you can always put it in an orphanage and up for adoption if you don't want to care for it. I don't give them much in the way of rights, just the last 2 months of pregnancy. I care a great deal about adult humans, and I agree with the Objectivist political position in every respect other than this issue (well, except I think a land value tax is legitimate, but that is a different thing). No regulations on business, no regulation of personal matters. Just enforce contracts and protect rights (no coercion, including fraud, murder, rape, assault, theft, etc.). I have no sympathy for someone if they choose to do something and it blows up in their face and then they come begging for something they have no right to ask for. They made a choice, now live with the consequences. By 30 weeks fetuses are viable without specialized medical care, so if the woman really doesn't want it inside her she can have it removed and then given up for adoption if she so desires. There isn't a reason to kill it except whim or malice. I find your post offensive, since I am being absolutely honest in my discussion, not posturing, lying, evading, or anything like that, my motives are laid out in my posts.

Well, for the same reason if man has choices. With morality (namely, a code of rational values that furthers his own life) then his life is benefited, and without it he will have a higher likelihood of pain and suffering. That's the only argument there can be for morality. It isn't effected by determinism, because you can say "Man is a certain way, A is A, so man must behave rationally in order to survive." That statement is true. Want to live? Then behave rationally. Don't? Well then I won't be seeing you around for very long, will I? Except when I'm trying to build my doorframe, add 2 and 3 feet together, get 4, then when I put it all up I end up being a foot too short. The point is that reality is noncontradictory, so if I make a mistake, I will run into it eventually, as I must. If I hit a problem, then I have to go try to look again. Your complaint can be redefined this way: "What if someone thought 2+3=4, and then chose to ignore evidence otherwise or was too dumb or lazy to find his error when he tried to figure out what went wrong with his door-building project?" That is, after all, exactly what would have to occur for someone to miss their mistake over and over en perpetuity as you suggest is possible for a deterministic being. Well, what if? Then they'll die pretty quickly, and it'd be their fault. After all, they were the ones who kept missing the error. No, you're right, he starts with self-evident things, percepts, then integrates them into very very basic concepts, then builds on those to get to lofty ideas like justice and quantum physics, constantly checking himself all along the way. How do you know you haven't made an error? There isn't any evidence you did, right? You keep checking and checking, and life has borne you out, correct? Well, same thing would apply for a determined person. And if you continually hold wrong ideas, reality will kick you in the face sooner or later. Alright, let's say Billy kills Jean. Should Billy get locked up? Well, he initiated force against Jean, which means that he violated her ability to survive (killing her actually), and so rejects morality and his right to his own life as a logical consequence. People who reject morality and adopt death as their goal have no rights, and so, since no moral person would want them around, we can lock them up in order to keep everyone else safe. So, yes, of course you can, even if they couldn't help it. Justice is about serving my own life by rewarding or punishing moral and immoral behavior. Assuming my above argument about morality not depending on volition is accepted as true, then it immediately follows that volition has no relation to the Objectivist idea of justice either.

I'm not going to help you a whole lot because I don't think volition in the sense that "Given exactly the same conditions of matter I might have done something different in a non-quantum-mechanically random way." While volition is a convenient shorthand and is a simple enough way to think about it, our understanding of physics points to a universe without a place for actual true volition in the sense I described above. My reasoning for why it isn't necessary goes like this: It only matters on the level of epistemology. Morally, you either act in a way that supports your life or you don't, and therefore are moral or immoral, so I can still say that you are doing something wrong, irrational, etc. so long as I have a valid epistemological base. Epistemologically, volition is supposedly necessary for validation and logic. But the process by which someone goes about gaining knowledge if they had volition is precisely what you would expect a computer to go about doing something, it follows from the simple statement "you can make errors." From that statement, and the law of noncontradiction (and the other axioms), you can say that you have to integrate all your knowledge into a noncontradictory whole, and then check over it to make sure you didn't make any mistakes (and check any new information for problems, often by something similar to the scientific method). Then maybe have other people look at it, and always be on the lookout for evidence you may be wrong (and right too of course). Volition isn't necessary for that, because any assertion that a statement could be wrong simply because its deterministically drawn can be rebuffed with "what evidence do you have other than the fact that people can make errors? Do you see an error? If not, then be quiet." So, yeah, that's why I don't think volition even matters in Objectivism. I think its either a shorthand, a holdover, etc. to describe the selection of a path from various seemingly plausible options. Or, alternatively, and I think more realistically, it is a result of Rand's limited experience with physics and a holdover from mysticism that even she couldn't shake off. I guess a world without a little man inside her head somehow above and beyond the rest of reality was too scary, and so it gets dismissed immediately as silly, arbitrary, etc. Its not a major problem in the end, but I do think it should be corrected (by Peikoff for instance). I actually pointed out several portions of OPAR where Peikoff touches on the parts of this (dismissing assertions as arbitrary if there is no evidence of error, the process by which someone comes to know they know something, etc.) in an email, asking him to explain or try to help resolve my dilemma, and despite my email heavily referencing his own work to make my case, he had an assistant tell me the he can't explain it any better than he already has. Kind of annoying, since I used his writing to explain the problem.

I don't listen to much punk, except Bad Religion. They're my favorite band by far, so as a percentage of listening time I guess I mostly listen to punk, haha. But in any case I think you have a good deal of potential. Like others have said, work on the lyrics, they seem to often sort jump (don't rhyme when you might expect sometimes) and especially there seems to be times when its scrunched up or too short, like more words/syllables than fit on the line are there. Definitely potential, and I will certainly listen to your album.

I mean how does someone take on the responsibilites of being a "parent" in a legal sense? If it is not a contract of some form, then what is it? My point in bringing it up is that you seem to simply be defining "parenthood" to necessarily only start at birth, and give no explanation for how parenthood comes about. Someone automatically agrees to be a parent unless they renounce that responsibility if they create the child (which by your definition happens at precisely the moment of birth. My point is that is not the proper demarcation point and saying "parenthood only begins at birth" without an explanation for why does not suffice. I don't see why a 30+ week old fetus isn't a human being. No, actually, a person is born when it becomes a separate entity, by your definition. It is not a separate entity until its umbilical cord is "cut" (the connection is severed, in whatever way you want to do it) and the baby takes a breath (thereby becoming self-sufficent). Separate means unconnected, not "not contained in." Until the baby has taken a breath and the umbilical connection is severed, the connection between mother and infant is not a trivial one, it is still a necessity for the child. Its not like two buildings connected by a walkway, they are separate, because neither needs the walkway. If the walkway is structurally significant to one or both buildings, then they are not "separate" buildings but one building divided into two section. All that is required for a fetus to gain rights is for it to be taken out, by your definition. But for the fetus, and the mother, nothing changes except location until the cord is severed and it is breathing independently. They are still a connected biological entity, with one dependent on the other for the requirements of life. Location, without anything else changing, cannot possibly grant rights, the idea is ridiculous on its face.

She chose to create the fetus, so she volunteered automatically. The creation of the fetus and allowing it to reach the point where it has a human brain and can survive outside the body (at 30 weeks this isn't a problem) is an acceptance of the responsibility for that life. Actually, you can. If you choose to perform surgery on someone, then you must complete it, you can't just change your mind in the middle and leave him bleeding on the operating table. If you choose to have another life put into your hands and only your hands than you must complete that responsibility or give it to someone else. If giving it away isn't an option, then you have to complete the responsibility regardless of your wishes. You agreed when you started out, and can't back out now simply because you want to. Not without consequences in the ethical and legal realms. And so how does parenthood begin? Who is the contract with? You automatically discount society as an option, or yourself. It can't be the infant, small child, or even a teenager because by legal standards they are not capable of entering into a contract. What is you basis for how a parent takes on the responsibilities I outlined in my previous post? If not by the simple decision to have a child, then by what possible standard could there be? Then by that definition before the baby has taken its first breath and as long as the umbilical cord is intact I can bash it with a rock and it is nothing more than destroying a tumor or growth. It is not "separate" from all other beings as yet. If you say "no no, the umbilical cord doesn't count", well then in utero doesn't count either since the infant gets all its nutrients through the umbilical cord. By the time the fetus has developed a brain of its own it can safely be removed from the mother without time in the ICU. At that point, the only thing that must be done is to induce a birth or remove it surgically. In fact, in order to do an abortion at that point you have to do a partial-birth abortion, which involves killing the fetus and then removing all of it intact. Why not simply remove it without killing it? A separate human life does exist at that point. It has a human brain, has short-term memory, is fully capable of surviving outside the womb. The only difference between it and an infant at that point is location. The woman does not have to be the only caregiver, she can get it out of her and give it to someone else to care for. She has decided to allow it to reach that point, has decided to create it. I don't understand how her decision to keep it within her unnecessarily when she doesn't want to be the caregiver allows her to decide to kill it, that is an irrational decision that shows a gross disrespect for human life, and there is no conceivable rational purpose in doing so.

Parents are the legal gaurdians for children until they reach the age of majority. They agree, by becoming parents, to that responsibility. That is the nature of parenthood. They must provide their children with a basic education (doesn't matter in what manner, but it has to have reading, writing, and basic math skills, enough to survive on its own in society), food, shelter, clothing, etc. They have to do this because they must naturally take over for the child his responsibilities for self-care and provision until the end of that necessity, which is the age of majority. Parenthood has legal requirements, because it is an implicit contract defined by the nature of human beings and in particular young ones. Someone must care for the children because they, by their abstract nature, cannot possibly do so themselves, but will be able to at a definitely definable point in the future. The logical person to do so is the person who chose to create them, the parents. I am saying that the fetus is human, to be a volitional rational consciousness, at the time it has fully recognizable human brain activity which is at 30 weeks into the pregnancy, and thus the beginning of that legal responsibility of the parent begins at that time. Before that it is simply a potentiality, without any rights and no contractual obligations, it can be killed without a moral issue at all. But when it "wakes up" so to speak, when its brain becomes distinctly human, and thus has the structure upon which a human's mind is built, it is a human child. The pregnant woman has chosen to create this human consciousness, and as a result they have chosen to be the only caregiver for a select length of time, and must also take on the responsibility of caring for it outside the womb unless she gets rid of her legal responsibility by putting it up for adoption. She can even, in most cases in developed countries, immediately end her responsibility for the child by having it removed via early induced birth or c-section. No one forced her to enter into the obligation she has as a parent, she chose to, and so no coercion can be said to occur.

Randroid has convinced me that "ability to survive outside the womb given 'standard' care" is not a rational criterion. I don't know why I placed so much emphasis on it, I regret doing so, as it isn't really what I center my ideas on the subject of abortion around. I agree with Carl Sagan's argument from his book Billions and Billions, wherein he states that the fetus gains human rights when it becomes human, namely when its brain has characteristically human brain wave patterns which show that it is now at least possibly capable of human thought, and this has been shown to be toward the end of the second trimester (about 29-30 weeks). No one has the right to exist at the expense of another. But they do have the right to insist on what is contractually obligated, to insist that someone follow through and take responsibility for their decisions. The woman has chosen to become and remain pregnant all the way until the end of her second trimester. At that point the fetus has acquired the thing which makes humans human, our brain. And so the woman has chosen to create a new human consciousness, and by the nature of things to be the only possible caregiver until it is given birth (defined as removed from the mother's body in a way which keeps it alive). She isn't forced to be the only caregiver, she chose to be. She isn't forced to keep it inside her, she chose to take on that responsibility when she created the new life in the first place. If you choose to take on a responsibility, you cannot shirk that responsibility without being punished. This does not mean that the woman's life is forfeit. If the woman will die unless the baby is aborted, then the baby must be killed (its actions, even if involuntary, are killing the mother and her life must be protected). The basis for human rights isn't the "animal" definition of human, or any of his secondary characteristics, but his nature has a being of volitional, rational consciousness. An alien who is rational deserves "human" rights it is a being of volitional, rational consciousness. It doesn't matter where the being is located, or what other characteristics it has, it has rights if it has the human capacity for thought, which is exactly what fetuses acquire at 30 weeks.

Hm, that actually is a good argument, which I haven't encountered before; that is, the fact that while the fetus is in the womb only the mother can care for it. And I'm not certain why there isn't a sort of contractual relationship between the pregnant woman, why is it illogical to say that she has a responsibility to the living thing she has inside her (once it can live on its own), or even to a potentiality (alcohol consumption in the first 6 months for instance can cause a whole host of problems, espcially mental retardation)? That is not a response, because if your position is fully correct, than no fully rational doctor would have any reason not to perform the abortion. He gets paid, and it is no different than if it was at 3 months, 6 months, or 8 months. There is no reason for him to care if the woman will regret it later. And so, a rational doctor would still be perfectly willing to do it. So, my question stands: is your position that that is fully within the rights of the woman and a fully moral action?

Well, my first thought is that this is an area which everyone acknowledges is outside the realm of ethics, principles, etc. You are dealing with a dying person, about to disappear forever, and by stipulation anything you do will not be known by anyone else. That is a very atypical situation, one in which man's life as a rational animal is impossible (one of the people is destined to die very very soon after all). It something of the lifeboat scenario, there's a lifeboat that can only hold 4 people, there are currently 5, so what do you do? That is a case where life is impossible, and the only solution is force and barbarism, at least on some level. My response as to "why should he not do that" is because he will likely feel he took advantage of a dying man for personal gain, which is disrespectful to that person and reflects on his general character (that his principles are not particularly deeply engrained, that he is willing to do anything if he thinks he can get away with it, etc.). That would probably damage his self-esteem, or at least make him feel nervous about other people, since if they should find out about what he did they will rationally think less of him which will hurt his life (both their reaction if they found out, and the anxiety he would feel about the possibility).

People don't seem to read entire posts, or respond to complete thoughts, instead just pick out small things which are generally unrelated and ignore everything else. There is a lot of context dropping going on. This goes for several of the people I've responded to, both on this thread and others. No, for reasons I discuss. Not at all, I am talking from the mother's perspective, she must come first, if she has to choose between surviving and feeding her child, then she should feed herself. We are talking about abortion, not infanticide, and given my position in the debate it is obvious I would say infanticide is wrong. "In my view" means that it is my conclusion, not that it is some random whim. While it may not be good debating form to say anything which implies that what you are saying is at all related to the conclusions of your own mind (otherwise called opinions, views, beliefs, thoughts, etc.) it doesn't seem something you should build an entire argument around. What rational relation is there between saying that I give all legal claim to my property when I agree to certain restrictions? My house is my own, no one can claim to own it but me, but if I live in certain neighborhoods I am contractually required to meet their homeowner's association guidelines. That is a proper analogy for the limitation I am discussing on abortion. I did say that I had not given a whole lot of thought to the matter, something which you clearly ignored. If they are severely retarded to the point where they are literally incapable of conceptual or rational thought on any level higher than an animal can attain, then they can hardly be said to be human. Now that pretty much only applies to brain-dead people, and yeah you have the right to kill a brain-dead person so long as they are not legally in the care of anyone. For all intents and purposes they are dead anyway. Similarly, if the baby will necessarily die in a year, and will in the mean time simply have to endure pain, then I see no reason why not to end its life (you are its legal guardian and make medical decisions after all, and I think euthanasia should be legal). No one has addressed my argument that pregnancy (in the third trimester, when the fetus can survive outside the womb with standard, for America, medical care and has fully recognizable human brain activity) is the same as parenthood. You don't have unlimited control over yourself in parenthood, you have a legal obligation to your child, unless you get rid of that obligation by putting them up for adoption. Why is it illogical to extend that to pregnancy? You have decided to bring a new human being into the world, that decision can be changed up to a certain point and then no longer exists after. For you it is apparently birth, which means that a premie baby that is 4.5 months old and isn't at all fully formed somehow has more rights than a late baby at 9.5 months that hasn't been born yet. That doesn't make sense. What if a woman is actually in the process of giving birth and all the doctors say that it isn't a problem, but then all of a sudden she panics, decides she doesn't want to be a mother, and insists on having it killing in-utero? That doesn't make any sense, and it is infanticide. But apparently that's fine and dandy because technically the baby is still getting sustenance through the umbilical cord and hasn't breathed air yet.

Oh, yes I do know about that. And if they don't know, then it is their own fault. If you have sex, you should be routinely taking pregnancy tests, except if you are using a fool-proof method like an IUD or implant. Even one a month will do, they only cost like five bucks and are available everywhere, you can stock up for a year, just in case. My point is this: you must live with the consequences of your actions, and your ineptitude, short-sightedness, or foolishness does not excuse you that responsibility. Just because I didn't think I was impaired from drinking doesn't mean I am still not responsible for driving drunk and killing a pedestrian. Just because I thought my acid was safe doesn't mean that I am not responsible for the brain damage I gave myself. Just because I didn't think to consider that the O-ring might get so small as to create a fuel leak at certain temperatures doesn't mean I am not responsible for the deaths of astronauts. "I didn't know my mortgage interest rate would increase after 3 years because I didn't bother reading the full contract" doesn't excuse you from paying it, and should not invoke a feeling of pity in anyone. The fact of the matter is you made a choice, and knew what might happen, then made further choices resulting in your present condition. You have to live up to the consequences of your choices, not simply shirk them off with an "I didn't know," or "Its so darned inconvenient." *Note: While the above may sound like an argument for a strong pro-life stance, that is not what I advocate, I advocate total discretion of the mother up to 5-6 months, and after that allowable in cases of risk of the health of the mother, or perhaps massive defects (like it will die in 6 months, or will be severely retarded, brain dead, bound to a bed its entire life, etc.) though I haven't given much thought to those.

I never said that she must put her life at risk in order to save a fetus. I have already said that the life of the mother must come first, just as it must after birth. If the fetus is going to kill the mother, or if anything other than an abortion would result in her death, than it has to be aborted, for the simple fact that the fetus is encroaching on the mother's right to life, and can be seen as a transgressor in that instance. Every woman knows that she is pregnant and what that means. By choosing to remain pregnant for 6 months, she has, in my view, agreed to any restrictions placed on her in the last three months of pregnancy. During that time she has a fully realized human being (in that if she happened to give birth early, it would be capable of having rights) inside of her, which only has to be taken out and given standard medical care for infants in America in order to survive. The mother from that point on is choosing to continue supporting the fetus with her body rather than giving birth and feeding externally or giving it to someone else to handle. She has, at that point, the choice to continue normal pregnancy, to give birth (in some manner) early, and to commit murder. That is my definition of her three choices. Rights are contextual, and we do not have unlimited freedom of action. If I enter into a contract, I cannot break it without punishment. If I kill someone, I can no longer move about as I wish, because I have broken the social contract. I have the right to not give you any food whatsoever if you ask, because we have no relationship at all. I can do the same to friends, and family. But with children who are in my legal care, I must do whatever I can to give them semi-adequate food and shelter, etc. or else I will be charged with the unique crime of "neglect" and imprisoned or fined for it, or lose my rights to the children, or some combination of those. Similarly, I believe pregnant women that explicitly decide to continue a pregnancy to the point where the fetus is fully capable of being independent have made the decision to enter into a phase where they cannot kill the fetus unless there is a significant threat to their health. Its like a contract, you cannot break it without being punished. Your totally free to do anything that does not infringe on the rights of others, but if you enter into a contract your activities must abide by those terms or you will face punishment. Pregnancy is such a case, though the contract is in the form of a legal responsibility, along the lines of parenthood. I don't see the conflict there.