Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

Now, all motives for abortion are a subset of motives for murder. . . . I say, abortion is murder because it has the same motive and practical effect.

No they aren't and no it doesn't. Lots of killing isn't murder or even immoral. Killing weeds in a garden isn't murder. Using anti-bacterial soap doesn't make one a mass-murderer. It isn't murder to remove a cancerous tumor. Periods aren't murder. Killing somebody in self-defense isn't murder. You'll have to provide some more support for your claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it would behoove you to consider...

Interest in respectful discussion of Objectivism and its implications or its applications are enough to make this forum a good fit for people of any religious persuasion. You were presented with someone who disagreed with you and with the choice to either convince him that you are right or to attempt to run him off of the forum. Do you think you made a good decision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No they aren't and no it doesn't. Lots of killing isn't murder or even immoral. Killing weeds in a garden isn't murder. Using anti-bacterial soap doesn't make one a mass-murderer. It isn't murder to remove a cancerous tumor. Periods aren't murder. Killing somebody in self-defense isn't murder. You'll have to provide some more support for your claims.

Yours is a failure to properly contextualize my statement, and hence do not represent serious statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand. It was only a reminder that abortion is anti-choice from the point of view of the child.

I'm gonna ignore your use of the word "child", because you're being intentionally irrational by using it. Not much point in telling you about it.

But I'm pretty sure using "point of view" wasn't intentional. So I'm gonna take the opportunity point and laugh at the notion that a clump of cells has a point of view. It's truly remarkable that someone could have such little regard for the meaning of words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I say, abortion is murder because it has the same motive and practical effect.

This is begging the question. You are implying a fetus is a person, which is the whole part of abortion that is debated.

Also, the practical effects aren't even the same - preventing something from coming into being isn't the same as ending the being of something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interest in respectful discussion of Objectivism and its implications or its applications are enough to make this forum a good fit for people of any religious persuasion. You were presented with someone who disagreed with you and with the choice to either convince him that you are right or to attempt to run him off of the forum. Do you think you made a good decision?

FeatherFall,

Point taken, my bad. In hindsight I can see that it would have behooved me to keep this blunt opinion to myself until I would have had more time to explain my reasoning behind it. My apologies to all for causing any disturbance in the decorum of the forums.

Edited by AbA
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You kidding? We have our very own Thomas Aquinas on O.Online, and you want to discourage him?

I don't agree with moralist's basic faith, and not with every conclusion he makes, but he is a damn good and honest

thinker.

Not forgetting that many Christians tend towards self-responsible individualism. Give me one of them before one

hundred secular-skeptical-progressives, any day. (As long as neither lot get their hands on State control.)

Besides, he is a very pleasant fellow.

That's nice. However, as far as I can tell, ever since he arrived, he managed to make every thread a debate over his own views. Views which have nothing whatsoever in common with the subject of this forum, the philosophy of Objectivism.

Furthermore, he has never in any way indicated that he is at all familiar with the works of Ayn Rand. Nor has he expressed any interest in her, or her philosophy. He never asks questions about Objectivism, he never so much as answers a question someone else asks, with anything related to Objectivism. The closest he came was when he remarked that Ayn Rand was great because she wrote like a dude. Not very close, if you ask me.

All he has done is to answer every thread in a way consistent with his Christian morality and Third Wave Republican politics, and entirely inconsistent with Objectivism. Even Kate the British lady (who is also here to push her own politics and nothing else) has at least tried to feign a little interest in Ayn Rand, early on (she's a very nice, polite member too, btw., just like moralist, which is why they're able to hang around even though they're constantly off topic).

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with you two having all the conversations you'd like, but I would really prefer it if they took place somewhere else. Somewhere where they're at least tangentially relevant to the purpose of the forum. Or not even that: it would be fine if they were restricted to a couple of threads. Like this one. Have this one all for yourselves. But the reason why I'm reading this forum and posting on it is because it's about Ayn Rand. If it was a free for all debate forum, I wouldn't be here. It would be a much more populous place, no doubt, but with a whole new set of members. Those of us interested in Objectivism would find a different forum on the same subject.

However, since this forum is still about Objectivism, I say: give me one skeptical progressive religious fundamentalist racist asshole moocher who is interested in talking about Ayn Rand, over the nicest, smartest, most self-sufficient guy, who isn't.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You kidding? We have our very own Thomas Aquinas on O.Online, and you want to discourage him?

I don't agree with moralist's basic faith, and not with every conclusion he makes, but he is a damn good and honest

thinker.

Not forgetting that many Christians tend towards self-responsible individualism. Give me one of them before one

hundred secular-skeptical-progressives, any day. (As long as neither lot get their hands on State control.)

Besides, he is a very pleasant fellow.

I tend to agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm gonna ignore your use of the word "child", because you're being intentionally irrational by using it. Not much point in telling you about it.

While I am pro-choice I don't think it can automatically be said that using the term "child" is innately irrational.

There is much to disagree about here, most especially when one starts getting into the ethics of late term abortions and the ethics of people who use that to extend to killing a baby that has just been born if the baby comes out undesirable.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/willheaven/100140331/after-birth-abortion-is-logically-sound-thats-why-it-will-boost-the-pro-life-movement/

It is a legitimate dialogue to have.

Some say post birth the baby has a right to life, some say that as soon as it *could* survive independently of the mother it has a right to life.

The issue is complicated by how subjective even the most rational person can become on the matter.

For example (this example appeals to men but in the case of female readers just assume you are carrying the baby)

Your wife is 5 1/2 months pregnant with a child you both wanted to conceive.

Someone assaults your wife, killing the unborn in the process.

Many, no matter how pro choice they are, would feel they lost a child.

Which means at some point many (not all, but many) are basing the unborn's right to life on the subjective issue of whether the child is wanted.

I am not saying this precludes a woman's right to choose. I am just saying this causes enough concern as to make it understandable that many still argue the matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yours is a failure to properly contextualize my statement, and hence do not represent serious statements.

I meant what I said, it wasn't a joke. My statements were serious. What is this "proper context" then? Elaborate. Get specific and explicit. That is what I was calling for to be done anyway to begin with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Furthermore, he has never in any way indicated that he is at all familiar with the works of Ayn Rand. Nor has he expressed any interest in her, or her philosophy.

Ayn Rand was the inspiration to create my own business and to build my own Galt's Gulch. So you see, for me this was not merely intellectualism. I acted on what I read.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand was the inspiration to create my own business and to build my own Galt's Gulch. So you see, for me this was not merely intellectualism. I acted on what I read.

Ayn Rand never told you to build your own Galt's Gulch. And besides, you don't own a Galt's Gulch. If you think you do, you never read Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I might provide some useful context to consider that abortion is the attempt to eliminate a consequence of an action. And just as hitting the ground always follows jumping off a cliff, that attempt to eliminate a consequence sets into motion consequences of its own.

No, abortion is one possible consequence. If one spent a lot of time working out in the sun and got skin cancer you wouldn't say it was attempting to eliminate a consequence of an action/actions to get cancerous cells removed and that it is accepting the consequences only if one allows the disease to take its course, would you? Or how about if one was out driving and got hit by another car. Is getting a blood infusion to replenish lost blood attempting to eliminate a consequence of an action? What about if one ate at a restaurant and got food poisoning and then sought medical treatment? In any of these cases there are known risks involved to varying degrees and somebody still did something knowing those risks existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's nice.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fine with you two having all the conversations you'd like, but I would really prefer it if they took place somewhere else. Somewhere where they're at least tangentially relevant to the purpose of the forum. Or not even that: it would be fine if they were restricted to a couple of threads. Like this one. Have this one all for yourselves. But the reason why I'm reading this forum and posting on it is because it's about Ayn Rand. If it was a free for all debate forum, I wouldn't be here. It would be a much more populous place, no doubt, but with a whole new set of members. Those of us interested in Objectivism would find a different forum on the same subject.

However, since this forum is still about Objectivism, I say: give me one skeptical progressive religious fundamentalist racist asshole moocher who is interested in talking about Ayn Rand, over the nicest, smartest, most self-sufficient guy, who isn't.

Take it outside, you mean? Nah, don't think so!

In point of fact, we don't talk much about Ayn Rand, personally, here. We talk about what she talked about, which is reality and existence. We talk about the principles, how they are formed, and plenty about how they are applied. That's the beauty of the philosophy - just consider for a while, and it has, and one finds, a true response for anything.

So maybe you get enough of the outside world in your day-to day, and prefer a haven of reason where you can preach to the choir, as we can't avoid. I concur. But also I say to the world, bring it on!

I don't differ much between here, and 'out there'. I enjoy finding things out, engaging with people who approach me - with varying ideologies - and finding some brief intersection and agreement, with person or ideology. It sharpens one's thoughts and establishes one's convictions more firmly.

That's all done in my self-interest, and the interest in our common humanity with others, who we have no choice but to live with.

You might know how it goes: you start talking sport; then comes the economy; of course, politics; and if it goes far enough, "what people should do", ethics.

With religious people, I'm up-front about my atheism, and they are generally accepting.

There is (naturally) this contradiction with them of mystical irrationality, but a decent level of reason, pragmatism along with it.

But they appreciate principle. That's crucial. (As opposed to lib-progs who only know 'policy'- i.e. State policy.)

They know morality and individualism, and are fascinated, if not convinced, on hearing that the one is the other.

From guys like moralist, honest and articulate religionists, I have the opportunity to pick up hints of how Christians (and Jews, and Muslims) are often successful businessmen. What drives them? The glory of God? The certainty that this is His plan for them? Within that religion, there is happiness and wealth to be observed. Objectivists should not reject those aspects, or dismiss the motives.

Anyway: I had my little rant, earlier; FeatherFall said it more calmly/judiciously; AbA made a gracious apology; you objected to my rant(not surprisingly); moralist surely learns about Rand as he goes along; and that should be the end of it.

Edited by whYNOT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, abortion is one possible consequence. If one spent a lot of time working out in the sun and got skin cancer you wouldn't say it was attempting to eliminate a consequence of an action/actions to get cancerous cells removed and that it is accepting the consequences only if one allows the disease to take its course, would you?
Exactly; even if one stayed out in the sun with full knowledge of the consequences. If one did something stupid, one should try to have the grace to accept the consequences that one cannot change; but, it is rational to do everything one can to prevent the bad consequences that one can change. Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is an attempt to avoid financial costs, social costs and social stigmas associated with one's actions by eliminating a unique human. The DNA of a 'fetus' is unique and once implanted on the uterine wall is in the regular life-cycle of all human beings. It is living and human. The only question is, Does it have value? The attempt to devalue humans and to use labels that make them subhuman is the despicable fraud of many twentieth century philosophies.

It was also vogue during the 1960's to claim that the 'fetus' was a simple tissue mass. This was to disguise the fact that this mass is a living human. You feel okay killing protoplasm just as you feel okay killing gutter rats who happen to be Jews.

No, that fetus doesn't start out with intelligence, but many of my students aren't very intelligent either.

There is no objective time when the 'fetus' acquires value other than implantation on the uterine wall. That is what you are struggling with. You can't decide when it is okay to scramble the brains and extract the corpse. You use words as shields to cover your evil. If only you can define your problem as of no value, then you can assuage your conscience. I advocate value. You argue for no value.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what you are struggling with.
Those who disagree with you are "struggling" with this? There are some who see DNA and the potential for human life in every sperm and egg and think if is evil to prevent fertilization. If you do not agree with them, would it be fair to say that you are struggling with the idea that sperms and eggs are life?

When you give your example, you jump to "scrambling brains". Does a fertilized egg have brains, by any stretch of the definition? It is completely understandable for people to feel an automatic emotion of hesitation and revulsion at killing a fetus when it looks like a baby human. The picture does not apply to early pregnancy. There, any negative emotion is driven not by the picture but one's (to me mistaken) intellectual judgement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Last I heard, abortions were far from $0 and there were hoards of people ready to look down on somebody who got an abortion. Though having these particular consequences is ultimately moot, I just found it amusing that the things you claim people get abortions to avoid are things that are still there if one does get an abortion presently. Getting something other than the worst possible outcome for one's own life isn't the same as "no consequences!" though. Good consequences are also consequences too, by the way.

"The DNA of a 'fetus' is unique . . ."

Yeah. What of it? (Cancer has unique DNA too, yes?) Identifying a difference is not necessarily the same as identifying a relevant difference. The way that one differentiates a zygote/embryo/fetus/whatever from other living stuff is why we have the concepts of fetus/etc. , but that does not identify what would make killing it morally different from many other things being killed in a variety of circumstances.

". . . the 'fetus' was a simple tissue mass."

That one hasn't gone away actually. It stuck around because it's true. I don't recall seeing fetus/embryo/etc. called protoplasm before though. As for "a living human" - Is it alive? Sure. Does it have human DNA? Yes. Is it "a human"? Nope. Not yet, maybe not ever depending on what the future holds. A fetus is no more a human than a bag of flour, can of icing, bag of sugar, and some milk and eggs already in a bowl are a cake. The ingredients are all there, but some assembly still required.

"Intelligence" isn't the basis of rights anyway. Even dogs posses what may be referred to as some form of intelligence. If intelligence was the issue then Lassie would have had more rights than a newborn theoretically based upon current research into child and animal psychology. What matters as far as why human beings have rights goes is that we possess a particular type of consciousness based upon volition and concepts as our fundamental means of survival. The "machinery", so to speak, for this consciousness to function is there and functioning from the time we're born. It isn't there in an embryo at all. As for later stages of development, thinking abilities aren't the issue there. At that point the issue becomes primarily about the "individual" part of "individual rights."

"Value" of anybody or anything involved was never the question. Value isn't inherent anyway, not even in born humans or anything else. Value is a relational issue. Something is of value or not to something/somebody toward some end.

Also, no struggle here either. ;) I've not had any trouble deciding anything on this issue. You can call them whatever you want anyway too, by the way, and it has no bearing on my thoughts on this issue. Embryo, zygote, fetus - these are proper terms for developmental phases and they are no more a baby than you are a toddler. Regardless though, even if somebody somehow made it official that the words we currently use were now being replaced by "unborn/preborn baby/child/human/human being/person" it would not change what the things these words refer to are. What they are doesn't change based upon what they're called. Call it an innocent little cutie-pie and it's still just a wad of cells which I have no problem seeing go into the trash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Abortion is an attempt to avoid financial costs, social costs and social stigmas associated with one's actions by eliminating a unique human. The DNA of a 'fetus' is unique and once implanted on the uterine wall is in the regular life-cycle of all human beings. It is living and human. The only question is, Does it have value?

The same used to be said of sperm.

Remember the church's anti-contraception/anti sex for anything but procreation stance?

I'm probably more sympathetic to your train of thought than most Objectivists but still, I'd ask you to be as consistent as you'd like others to be.

Gradually people moved away from believing that contraception was murder (St. Jerome was probably the most prominent to declare it so), and so too did many move away from believing that aborting while the life is still just a mass of cells murder.

So if getting rid of the mass of cells if murder, why do we not go all the way back to any male ejaculation made without attempt at pregnancy the same?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ayn Rand never told you to build your own Galt's Gulch.

You're right, Nicky... Ayn Rand didn't say anything directly to me because I never met her. (The closest I ever was to her was living about 10 miles from her home.) But she did describe how Galt and the others built a place of safety from the inevitable economic and social collapse. So I took her words to heart and followed the example in her book by doing the same to protect me and my loved ones. With so many of Ayn Rand's predictions coming true all around us, isn't it just simple common sense to actually do something about it?

When I read, it is not just for intellectual ideas as they're totally useless if you don't actually do anything about them. So I read for practical things which I can actually do to make those ideas come alive in my own life, because I'm much more of a doer than a thinker.

And besides, you don't own a Galt's Gulch. If you think you do, you never read Atlas Shrugged.

(shrug...) Whenever you manifest a highly stylized literary ideal into the real world, there are always concessions to be made, and that's an insignificant one.

And I read Atlas Shrugged with different eyes than you. To me it is a practical business operations manual and a useful survival guide.

Edited by moralist
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I read Atlas Shrugged with different eyes than you. To me it is a practical business operations manual and a useful survival guide.

This casual assumption of yours that others on this forum aren't interested in the practical implications of Objectivism, or aren't interested in actually applying it to their own lives, is arrogant, presumptuous, and one of the reasons you're getting such negative feedback from your posts here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This casual assumption of yours that others on this forum aren't interested in the practical implications of Objectivism, or aren't interested in actually applying it to their own lives, is arrogant, presumptuous, and one of the reasons you're getting such negative feedback from your posts here.

That's in interesting observation, because I've been searching through the threads here for practical things which people have actually done to implement Ayn Rand's ideas in their own lives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's in interesting observation, because I've been searching through the threads here for practical things which people have actually done to implement Ayn Rand's ideas in their own lives.

Most of us aren't here to brag about all the Objectivist stuff we've done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...