Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

'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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SS and Kesg

Any further discussion of previous insults probably belongs in a private conversation - or on the forum where the insults were made.

I second that.

Please note that ANY discussion of other member's character is against the forum rules. If you have concerns about someone’s behavior, please contact the moderators directly. The only exception is when an evaluation of their character is necessary to decide whether one should sanction them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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. :unsure:

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

I cannot imagine a better summation to distinguish from the principles of Objectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

That only describes how separated or connected a baby and the mother are between the moment of birth and the moment when the umbilical cord is cut.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That only describes how separated or connected a baby and the mother are between the moment of birth and the moment when the umbilical cord is cut.

I love your sig. :P

I wrote all that in a big hurry after accidentally losing a much longer and more carefully reasoned response -- insert :unsure: 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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

My post was not patronizing. Quite the contrary, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt: I spent my time trying to illustrate to you why "viability" in this context is an utterly subjective term, despite seeing how you responded to rational arguments from others here by completely ignoring the essential points made. I'm sorry to see that you have done the same here:

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.

Regarding your warning:

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.

...

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.

...

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.

I read your previous post in which you stated that you apologized if you offended anyone--the implication being that they were wrong to take offense; thus, your apology was not sincere. Either acknowledge that you wronged other members of this forum who have been trying to explain their positions on this issue to you in good faith and apologize to them, or please explain to me how your obvious implication that they accept whatever Ayn Rand says dogmatically could possibly be taken or intended in any other way.

I stand by my warning. Further, I must ask you why you think that I've "prejudged" the dispute in an unobjective way, and why you think that RadCap and Stephen Speicher deserve warnings (their behavior toward you has been almost indefensibly tolerant and even benevolent).

Also, my warning is not meant to "intimidate" you. I was not on the verge of banning you or anything like that. I was merely informing you that some of your behavior was unacceptable here, and expecting you to understand that and act accordingly, like an adult. If I were going to patronize you, that would mean I didn't think you were capable of acting like an adult, in which case I wouldn't have bothered--I would have just banned you. But I didn't, did I?

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.

My statement was that I hoped you would respond intelligently to my post. That does imply that I think you have not done so in other cases on this thread--but it also implies that I thought that you might in this case (I guess because I thought my argument against viability was so plain that you couldn't ignore it). This is not a complex question, like asking you when you will stop beating your wife when it has not been established that you do in fact beat her. It is more like asking you when you will stop beating your wife when I've personally witnessed you doing so recently.

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.

I agree with you about one thing: the previous posts speak for themselves. If you think I've mischaracterized them, please provide specific examples and references--or retract your statement, or be given another warning. Those are your choices. If you don't like them and if you think that I'm an unfair administrator, you then have two further options: appeal to a higher administrator (that would be GreedyCapitalist), or leave.

I am just disappointed that my post about the problem with "viability" was not given serious consideration so that we could have had a productive discussion about this. That was my essential intention with my last post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am just disappointed that my post about the problem with "viability" was not given serious consideration so that we could have had a productive discussion about this. That was my essential intention with my last post."

Ash - as I noted, kesg would rather derail a conversation than either admit fallacies or deal with certain contradictions to his ideas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
 

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.

First, I do not understand why physical independence is relevant when discussing the issue of being. Please provide a logical explaination of why you think it is.

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.

I agree with all of this.

I would like to argue that birth is non-objective for the same reasons. Each fetus spends a different length of time between conception and birth. It seems odd to me that a baby born 8 months and 2 weeks after conception is a person, while a fetus that is not yet born 9 months after conception is not a person.

Surely you wouldn't then say that a fertilized egg or a zygote or an embryo is objectively an actual human being?
I would.

I saw an analogy earlier in this thread involving an oak tree.

The argument was something like this: "an acorn is a potential oak tree, but one cannot build a house with it." A baby oak tree that is six inches high is an actual oak tree, but one could not build a house with it either. I would argue that, in the same way, a fertilized egg is an actual human being, but it cannot do most of the things most other humans can.

If you think that a fetus has rights, fine: let it exercise them.

All fetuses are exercising their right to life, except when they are prevented from doing so. I would argue that the fetus living and then being killed is, philosophically, the same as an adult who is living and gets shot. The adult is exercising his right to life, and is then prevented from doing so by an initiation of force by another person. The same is true for the fetus. (for this to be valid, you must agree that a fetus is an actual human)

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?
This is an interesting point. I would say that the fetuses right to life is not a claim on the lives of the parents, because they chose to engage in an act that they knew might result in the creation of a new life. This is similar to the fact that enforcing a contract is not a claim on the lives of those envolved because they agreed to sign the contract.

If you do not agree with this arguement, then I would like to ask you the same question, but regarding the life of a 1 year old baby.

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.

I would argue that there are two lives present in a pregnant woman. I agree that the word "separate" is contradictory when refering to the physical entities of the fetus and its mother. However, I think that a fetus and its mother are separate in all ways with the exception of being "physically connected." (they are 2 distinct beings, similar to conjoined twins)

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.

I am arguing that an actual human being is created at conception, and that sperm and eggs are only potential human beings.

My definition of "actual human being" is: A entity that is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens (also, I would like to see your definition of "actual human being")

Reasons: this definition applies to all humans and does not apply to anything else

Your argument against viability being the point of potential changing to actual was logical and reasonable. I hope that you (as opposed to many of the other forum members) and I can have a logical and reasonable debate on this important issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would argue that there are two lives present in a pregnant woman.  I agree that the word "separate" is contradictory when refering to the physical entities of the fetus and its mother.  However, I think that a fetus and its mother are separate in all ways with the exception of being "physically connected." (they are 2 distinct beings, similar to conjoined twins)

If that's the case, the "connection" is immoral!

If a fetus has the right to life, doesn't it also have the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Do you think it is fair to keep the poor fetus a prisoner inside a woman's body? You certainly wouldn't allow anyone to treat a child that way!

Support Fetal Liberation! Disconnect that fetus and remove it -- whether the woman wants to keep it or not! If a fetus has rights, they must be respected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw an analogy earlier in this thread involving an oak tree.

The argument was something like this:  "an acorn is a potential oak tree, but one cannot build a house with it."  A baby oak tree that is six inches high is an actual oak tree, but one could not build a house with it either. 

But an acorn is still not an oak tree. Ask any squirrel.

I would argue that, in the same way, a fertilized egg is an actual human being, but it cannot do most of the things most other humans can.

I'm not aware of anything it can do which humans can.

Here's the fundamental issue: prior to birth a fetus is physically dependent on its mother upon whom it depends for survival and it is in the mother's body, which is her property. After birth it is no longer dependent on the mother (anyone can care for it) and it is no longer in the mother's body, i.e. it is a separate being.

So, it is at that point, at birth, that a logical point exists to acknowledge the existence of rights. Prior to that point, to arbitrarily grant the fetus rights, you would have to override the mother's right to her body - not to mention, when considering the whole range of moral, legal and financial obligations which ensue upon child birth - the woman's right to her life.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe that at the point in the gestation cycle where abortion typically occurs, the fetus is not much more than a tiny spec. People can say that it is potentially a human, and that is true, but the potential is not the actual. What was actually aborted? A spec. Big deal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an interesting point.  I would say that the fetuses right to life is not a claim on the lives of the parents, because they chose to engage in an act that they knew might result in the creation  of a new life.  This is similar to the fact that enforcing a contract is not a claim on the lives of those envolved because they agreed  to sign the  contract.

I would like to comment simply on this one aspect. One of the most vicious arguments opponents of abortion make is this: the woman chose to engage in an action that she knew could lead to the conception of a child, and therefore she must accept the consequences that follow.

Now, sometimes that's true (though not always), but irrelevant: unless the fetus has rights, it doesn't matter whether the conception was the result of her free choice or not.

But consider the further implication: do not have sex unless you are willing to birth and raise a child. What's worse is that this - the destruction of sex as a value - seems to be the goal of many religious types: that is what they are against, more so than abortion.

Absolutely indefensible. Absolutely disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would like to comment simply on this one aspect.  One of the most vicious arguments opponents of abortion make is this: the woman chose to engage in an action that she knew could lead to the conception of a child, and therefore she must accept the consequences that follow.

Yeah, you're absolutely right.

They might as well say it's your responsibility if you get hit by a car crossing the street. So, you got hit by a car. Tough. Next time don't cross the street. That'll teach ya!

It turns the act of sex into a crap shoot, since even in situations where the woman doesn't want a child and takes measures against it, such as contraception, it might fail - and suddenly she is burdened with the responsibility of an unwanted child.

For religious fundamentalists, who regard the act of sex as primarily for the purpose of procreation, this is not a problem. But to hear purported Objectivists sometimes arguing along these lines is truly amazing. It always suggest to me that there are some other, more fundamental, problems they have with the philosophy.

Fred Weiss

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am arguing that an actual human being is created at conception, and that sperm and eggs are only potential human beings.

My definition of "actual human being" is: A entity that is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens (also, I would like to see your definition of "actual human being")

Reasons:  this definition applies to all humans and does not apply to anything else

Bob--

Why do you choose conception as the point that distinguishes potential and actual human beings? Your post suggests two possibilities, both of which I would like to consider: 1) at the moment of conception the resulting zygote possesses the complete DNA of a human being (this is implicit in your defining human beings as a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens--I take you to be saying that it is actually human because it is genetically human); and 2) your definition is neither too wide nor too narrow.

1) So what? Every cell of your body besides your sperm or ova contain a complete set of DNA (of the appropriate species)--that does not make them an actual human being. True, the zygote's DNA is unique--but it is still just an undifferentiated, non-conscious clump of cells, not unlike any small cluster of cells in your body to which you would not ascribe rights. In order to maintain your position, then, you would have to hold that it is its unique, human DNA that gives it rights. That is certainly not the Objectivist position, and I doubt you can actually justify that position with reference to reality (though if you are wont to try, I will be interested in seeing what you have to say about it). In other words, the DNA argument seems to be a rationalization for a previously accepted conclusion that one has no rational basis for accepting.

2) Being neither too wide nor too narrow is not sufficient to make your definition a correct one. I could say that a human being is an organism that wears clothes. That definition applies to all humans and does not apply to anything else. But it's still a lousy definition. (You might respond that then it doesn't apply to fetuses, since they don't wear clothes, so my definition begs the question by assuming my conclusion about what is at issue here--that fetuses are not actual human beings. But your constructing a definition that covers the exact same range of entities as mine but with the addition of fetuses, embryos, zygotes, etc., is similarly question begging. The only way to decide between our definitions is to start from scratch, observe the appropriate facts of reality that give rise to the concept, and then form a definition based on essentials, which may not be either of our definitions--and then you can apply that definition to the case of fetuses and determine whether they count.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's another interesting issue regarding definitions here. There may be multiple definitions which are coextensive, i.e. which would identify the same actual entities. "Rational animal" and "organism with DNA-type x" may be such definitions. (For that matter, you could toss in "featherless biped.")

So the issue can't be merely one of extension. Given that we may be able to pick out the same entities with multiple genus/differentia combinations, how should we choose between our options? This is where the issues of fundamentality and purpose come in. Now, clearly both rationality and genetic structure can be viewed as fundamental for humans. They both underlie and explain a great number of our distinctive characteristics. The question is, given those two options, which is appropriate to a discussion of rights?

The concept of rights arises in the context of social interaction. So ask yourself: what are you trying to explain here? Is the fact that we have eyebrows and opposible thumbs the sort of thing you want your definition to bring to mind, or is it more important to have your definition bring to mind facts like "men engage in trade" and "men create values"?

Obviously, the answer is the latter. If we had a totally different genetics, but which still gave rise to the capacity for reason, we would still face the same questions in ethics and politics. If we had a very similar genetic structure which did not give rise to such a capacity, we would not. So while defining man as "the organism with DNA-type x" may be appropriate for the biologist, who has different questions and concerns, it is not appropriate for the philosopher.

In any case, there is a decidedly rationalistic approach in some of this discussion. It is impossible to deduce rights from any definition -- even "the rational animal", appropriate as it is. However, having an appropriate definition, if it's not floating, will help you identify the facts that do give rise to rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It turns the act of sex into a crap shoot, since even in situations where the woman doesn't want a child and takes measures against it, such as contraception, it might fail - and suddenly she is burdened with the responsibility of an unwanted child.

The act of sex is already a crapshoot. Always has been, might not always be, with or without the option of abortion.

But seriously,

I'm having trouble understanding the rational explanation for which birth is the point at which the fetus acquires rights. Incidentally, I have read the entire thread, so please don't accuse me of not having done so. Nobody has proven that the fetus becomes a person at the moment of birth. I say this because nobody has given a definition of the word person - entity having rights - and proven that it is the correct definition.

Why can a fetus not also be a person? I don't buy the fact that it is not physically separate from the mother as the determining factor. All other things being equal, if the fetus could communicate with us, write books, tell jokes, I doubt we'd be having this discussion. I know the fetus cannot do any of these things, but if it could, and were still completely physically dependent on the mother, it would be a rational being.

Viability is a horrible criterion for determining when the fetus becomes a human being as demonstrated by the person - i think ashryan - who showed how arbitrary it is. The word, viability, is hardly specific or absolute.

Does the newly formed embryo have rights? Nobody here who holds this position has proven that it does. The fact that it is a member of homo sapiens sapiens is meaningless when talking about rights. Rights are afforded rational beings, not homo sapiens sapiens, unless the set of all homo sapiens sapiens are rational beings, which nobody has demonstrated.

Can we know when a fetus becomes a person (I am taking for granted that the fetus does in fact become a person, or rather, that a person must come into being, because there do not exist invisible people that jump into fertilized eggs, viable fetuses, or newborns)? I say maybe. We might already know, and someone can prove that a fetus becomes a person at such and such time. We may not know now, but later technology will enlighten us. Perhaps the answer is beyond human comprehension. Would this inability to comprehend violate Objectivist epistemology? (That's not a rhetorical question - I would appreciate an answer)

I think most of you can see where I'm going with this - I'm being a dirty skeptic, kind of. I'm trying to say that we don't know for certain, at least with our present body of knowledge, when a fetus becomes a person, and that we may never know or not be able to know. Therefore, it is morally correct to play it safe and not abort the fetus, unless, of course, it is okay to terminate something that may or may not have rights, for the benefit or interest of something that definitely has rights - the mother-to-be. I haven't come to a conclusion about the last issue. :)

Does anybody agree with me, and if not, where did I go wrong?

Ed

PS - I am not an Objectivist. I agree with every tenet, and almost every conclusion, the issue of abortion obviously not being one of them.

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...