Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What Has the 'Pro-Life' Movement Won?

Rate this topic


Boydstun
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Doug Morris said:

Aren't there things the government should permit us to do with consenting adults, but not with children?

What about the following examples.

Giving them alcohol or tobacco.

Having sex with them.

Putting them to work in dangerous places, such as in mines or on rooftops.

 

Correct no one owns children, and children do not have the capacity to consent to certain things, the consequences of which they cannot understand ... until they reach an age when generally they can, and with respect to that particular issue... they are no longer children.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

After having raised the issue of infanticide, I am now having a discussion whose subject is how a person or society should deal with helpless infants who will die without care.

Keep in mind, how a society should deal with anything can end up meaning how "some in" society should be made to do it. This has to be defined more specifically.

3 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

What are the ramifications of having that responsibility?  Is it merely an admonition to a parent that they will feel bad if they abdicate that responsibility... merely a "you'll be sorry" if you murder or neglect your child and they die.

There is a difference between murder, hitting, physically abusing of a child vs. neglect. And there is a difference between neglect that is due to overwhelm vs. neglect due to whim. In all cases the child will suffer.

In all cases, one would have to determine the punishment and how to carry that out. This would clarify the rights of the parties involved. Otherwise it is an admonition as you say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just some information from the latest issue of SCIENCE NEWS (30 July 2022):

The "fetal heartbeat" heard at around six weeks of pregnancy are not caused by the opening and closing of heart valves moving blood through heart chambers. The heart's chambers have not yet developed at that time. The ultrasound machine is creating the heartbeat-like sounds upon detection of fluttering of the heart-tube tissue, which is due to electrical activity in that tissue. So the ultrasound is detecting something new in the development that concerns tissue that is on the way to becoming a heart, but not the onset of a beating heart.

 

Scan 4.jpeg

Scan 5.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Correct no one owns children

There is in fact a form of ownership that a parent or guardian has. We say "my child", I have right to discipline "my child" but not "your child". As an aside, the same issue of ownership is true of "my wife" or "my husband". It is not that one can buy or sell or dispose, but it is a set of rights that one has over someone.

Greek communists went against that saying that children do not belong to parents but to the state. And when mothers started hiding their children or helping them escape the country, mothers were executed.

There is a form of ownership, but it has to be defined more clearly. I bring this up because I support the idea that abortion rights are ultimately about some form of ownership rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

"My wife" , "my husband" or "my child" describes a 'set of rights' ? Are you sure it is not a linguistic formulation of a  relationship ?

I'm not talking chattel or slavery or any absolute right to "them" but a particular right to interact in a certain way.

Ownership rights ultimately is a definition of the boundaries between people. How would you differentiate you're wife from the neighbor's? Basically isn't there a message "don't cross this line regarding my wife"? It's unwritten but isn't it there?

Ownership of anything indicates an exclusive way of relating to it, that others don't have and shouldn't have.

I would argue this type of exclusive relationship between you and to your body exists that should not be violated by others. That is true of a mother of an unborn too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The differentiation is in the use of possessive pronouns, "my wife" describes the woman to whom I am married ( or as we collectively identify as ). But the pronoun is used to point to a specific individual out of all the other individuals in the universe(me) , it does not confer, even implicitly, any legal or moral right to action in regard to the person or thing being described. I may well have legal and or moral rights in regard to the person or thing , but the phrase only signifies a relationship not any kind or degree of 'possession'.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

it does not confer, even implicitly, any legal or moral right to action in regard to the person or thing being described

It implies that "you collectively identify as …" so why don't you call her your exclusive comrade then? Or maybe you are carbon  based economic units attempting to infest the universe.

No it means you have an agreement. You have a right to something regarding her and she has a right to something regarding you. And there could be a breach of contract. So there are legal rights and ramifications involved.

Ultimately that is what a marriage means, a legal contract delineating rights of action toward each other and toward OTHERS. Others don't have the same rights that you two have toward each other.

You could also simply be lovers. Which also can have exclusivity rights involved. Even in poly polyamorous relationships there are agreements, i.e. possession of this or that right of action.

So "mine" means "mine". Your wife means she belongs to you, "as wife". It's not a linguistic anomaly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it means more that I have responsibilities toward her and that by being legally recognized as married she has the right to expect me to fulfill those responsibilities and I have the same right to expect that she fulfills hers to me.

The ‘institution ‘ of marriage likely came about in human society through adaptations of evolutionary pressures manifesting in societal settings. Sexual reproduction is ‘driven by’ practicing the best strategies to ‘get your genes into the future’. A specific male lineage stands a better chance of traveling further in the future if his offspring are well provided for , and any energy or resources used to provide for children other than his would be wasted effort toward the best practice of the ultimate goal. 

Thats why guys don’t like other guys fucking their wives.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, tadmjones said:

By your standard , I think you mean you'll trade for my word , unless you're some kind of mooch or second hander.

My words are free.

The whole question of ethics being based on "our nature", seems to ignore the evolutionary aspect. On one hand we are evolved to want this or that, we have free will to go against it. The fact that a woman can in fact get rid of a potential child within her body does not mean "she should". But should in what sense? A personal obligation, or is that to the point of having laws that will allow for incarceration of the mother and putting her in a straightjacket. Or is it simply that "no one may help her do it".

Some will argue that "it is the law" to prevent her, but not specifically saying "tradition has some value, or some validity". "We've always done it that way and it works" or "we're used to it". It may in fact have some value, as in "when you don't have the facts, go by tradition". But then we used to use "bleeding" to cure the plague … we've always done it that way and because everyone does it.

The question of abortion seems to have two easily identifiable points as to emergence of a (morally) protected life. One is conception, the other is birth. In both cases we have to also include a (morally) protected life, meaning ought to be protected.

The question of "ought to" does not come up when you love something. We just protect it … period. It's when we don't love it that "ought to" becomes important.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The ‘institution ‘ of marriage likely came about in human society through adaptations of evolutionary pressures manifesting in societal settings. Sexual reproduction is ‘driven by’ practicing the best strategies to ‘get your genes into the future’. A specific male lineage stands a better chance of traveling further in the future if his offspring are well provided for , and any energy or resources used to provide for children other than his would be wasted effort toward the best practice of the ultimate goal. 

Thats why guys don’t like other guys fucking their wives.

Does this mean once a woman goes through menopause, her husband doesn't care who fucks her?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Doug Morris said:

My country.

My race.  (As in I don't attach much importance to my race.)

My alma mater.

My eye color.

My planet.

My cholesterol level.

My blood type.

My favorite foods.

My cousins.

How much ownership?

They all indicate possession of something i.e. a "pairing of".

But:

My country

My planet

are two that can indicate ownership similar to wife or child. As in "belonging to".

This type of ownership has an element of responsibility while the others don't. It's almost ownership of consequences. What you own, you are responsible for i.e. consequences of "it's" actions should have ramification to the owner. If it is profit, the owner profits, if it is loss, they lose. If your child breaks the neighbor's window, you own the problem. It's yours. Not like your eye color, but like standing in front of the judge and pleading your case.

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...