[Michelle R]

Peikoff's view on it seems mindlessly liberal to me. A person is no less human just because of her spacial relationship with the mother.

As to a solution for it, isn't there a point where it can stop being consider a shapeless mass of tissue and nerves and start being considered human? If this is so, wouldn't the ideal policy be to allow abortion up until this point? And how many weeks, in general, would you say it takes a normally developing child to develop to this point?
If a potential mother can't make up her goddamned mind about whether or not she wants the kid until it is fully formed in the fetus, she should just suck it up and deal with the consequences of her actions.

This is one area where I am REALLY, REALLY opposed to most feminists, who seem to think even partial-birth abortions are moral.

[Ted Keer]

Michelle R, on May 30 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

Peikoff's view on it seems mindlessly liberal to me. A person is no less human just because of her spacial relationship with the mother.

As to a solution for it, isn't there a point where it can stop being consider a shapeless mass of tissue and nerves and start being considered human? If this is so, wouldn't the ideal policy be to allow abortion up until this point? And how many weeks, in general, would you say it takes a normally developing child to develop to this point?
If a potential mother can't make up her goddamned mind about whether or not she wants the kid until it is fully formed in the fetus, she should just suck it up and deal with the consequences of her actions.

This is one area where I am REALLY, REALLY opposed to most feminists, who seem to think even partial-birth abortions are moral.

Okay, this is getting scary. Michelle, you and I seem to agree on everything except, perhaps, gay "marriage" and assuming you see the superiority of my proposal of adult adoption to gay marriage then....

[Selene]

Agreed.

It is not a feminist issue it is an individual rights issue.

At each point from conception, the question can be fairly posed as to whether it is a human life.

Adam

[Michelle R]

Ted Keer, on May 30 2009, 05:45 PM, said:

Michelle R, on May 30 2009, 06:14 PM, said:

Peikoff's view on it seems mindlessly liberal to me. A person is no less human just because of her spacial relationship with the mother.

As to a solution for it, isn't there a point where it can stop being consider a shapeless mass of tissue and nerves and start being considered human? If this is so, wouldn't the ideal policy be to allow abortion up until this point? And how many weeks, in general, would you say it takes a normally developing child to develop to this point?
If a potential mother can't make up her goddamned mind about whether or not she wants the kid until it is fully formed in the fetus, she should just suck it up and deal with the consequences of her actions.

This is one area where I am REALLY, REALLY opposed to most feminists, who seem to think even partial-birth abortions are moral.

Okay, this is getting scary. Michelle, you and I seem to agree on everything except, perhaps, gay "marriage" and assuming you see the superiority of my proposal of adult adoption to gay marriage then....

I'm still contemplating how I should respond to that thread.
My major concern is gay couples being denied benefits heterosexual married couples have access to:
http://www.nolo.com/...BA/118/304/ART/
Really, is it right to now allow a homosexual to visit his/her partner in an intensive care unit because they're unable to get married to receive these benefits?
And as has been said, although the roots of marriage are found in the married couple's ability to care for a child, this is really a peripheral issue in modern-day society. The modern conception of marriage seems to be aimed at promoting social stability. The modern root of marriage is found in romantic love.
Unless you're going to force married couples to sign a legal document telling them that they must conceive a child, I don't see how you can refuse to extend marriage benefits to homosexual couples. If the issue of conception is the catch, then this has to extend equally to heterosexual and homosexual couples.

Also, you said that it can be a priori deduced that heterosexual couples would make better parents for a child than homosexual couples, from what I remember.
How exactly can a complex psychological/sociological question be answered a priori? Most of the research I've read on this issue has concluded that the matter of the child's healthy psychological growth depends upon the amount and manner of attention he receives in the household.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 30 May 2009 - 05:22 PM

[Michelle R]

Selene, on May 30 2009, 05:58 PM, said:

Agreed.

It is not a feminist issue it is an individual rights issue.

At each point from conception, the question can be fairly posed as to whether it is a human life.

Adam

Well, it is an issue of individual rights on two levels:
1) The right of the fetus to life
2) The 'right' (moral right, primarily) of the mother to self-determination and privacy

It is a complicated issue, but I think that my proposed solution would address both of these issues. It would give the mother a chance to abort if she really didn't want the child, but it would also prevent abortionists from murdering a fully-formed child during a later term.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 30 May 2009 - 05:09 PM

[Michelle R]

Ted, it is worth mentioning that my positions on three issues - homosexuality/gay marriage; transsexualism; and abortion - have effectively alienated me from both right-wingers and progressives, because I fully support gay marriage initiatives (although I don't go out of my way to support them - I can't do everything, after all), rights for transsexuals (which is an issue entirely different than transgenderism; one is either a neurological disorder (brain-sex theory) or a psychological disorder (Autogynephilia theory, popularized by Blanchard), the other a sociological phenomenon), but am disturbed by abortion, which seems dangerously close to legalized murder to me.

I'm more open to discussion on gay marriage and abortion, however, since I have not studied these subjects very extensively.
One overriding passion in my life, however, has been the issue of transsexuals, gender dysphoria, and how these people are treated. And my central contention concerning transsexuals, that they be allowed the same social rights and privileges as cissexuals, has been my greatest source of conflict with people. Because it is one of the few things I KNOW I am right on and to encounter mockery at every turn for my support of them only makes me push harder. That people instantly think of Jerry Springer, she-male pornography, and other trash media when the subjects of SRS or hormone therapy/electrolysis/whatever arise doesn't help.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 30 May 2009 - 07:23 PM

[Selene]

Correct Michelle.

It is a difficult issue none the less.

In terms of how Ted's, your and my positions on civil unions and marriage, I cannot, for the life of me figure out why anyone would ever get married today as opposed to civil unions which encompass every single civil right every other individual has.

I believe a the federal right to freedom of association can be extended through the 14th to the states.

For example, my lady and I could not have a civil union recognized by the State of Virginia - however, if I had chosen to, it would have made an excellent argument under the full faith and credit clause. Our NY City civil union would have had to have been recognized by the State of Va.

It is solvable without naming it marriage which does have a common law history and is a special contract.

Adam

[Michelle R]

Selene, on May 30 2009, 06:40 PM, said:

Correct Michelle.

It is a difficult issue none the less.

In terms of how Ted's, your and my positions on civil unions and marriage, I cannot, for the life of me figure out why anyone would ever get married today as opposed to civil unions which encompass every single civil right every other individual has.

I believe a the federal right to freedom of association can be extended through the 14th to the states.

For example, my lady and I could not have a civil union recognized by the State of Virginia - however, if I had chosen to, it would have made an excellent argument under the full faith and credit clause. Our NY City civil union would have had to have been recognized by the State of Va.

It is solvable without naming it marriage which does have a common law history and is a special contract.

Adam

Heh. You know, if I was a lesbian, I know exactly the reaction I'd have to being allowed a "civil union":
"Oh boy, my very own drinking fountain!"

Personally, though, I'd rather avoid marriage. I don't like the idea of legally binding myself to another person, male or female.

This post has been edited by Michelle R: 30 May 2009 - 05:48 PM

[Ted Keer]

Michelle, you may find the discussion here of interest. You have to log in and vote in order to see the poll results.

[Michelle R]

Thanks for the link!

[Michelle R]

My problem is that, even if I wanted to support the anti-abortion movement, I probably wouldn't, because it seems to be linked directly to groups of fundamentalist Christians who want to impose religious laws on the people of America.

[Selene]

Michelle do not let them categorize you. However, keeping a safe distance is a wise choice.

I call my stance pro life and not pro death.

Adam

[Christopher]

Hey Adam,

I just want to say that your previous post on abortion within the Rand critics thread was perhaps the most cogent pro-life argument I have yet heard.

[Selene]

Chis:

It struck home to my way of thinking.

I have been on both sides of this issue. The case prior to Roe and Roe is one of the worst pieces of "Sotomayor" type law on the level of Plessy.

I actually find it difficult to understand the rigidity in Objectivists to even consider much of the evidence that we now know about in utero and when you speak to an adult human who happened to luckily survive one of these "late term abortions" which is premeditated murder to me.

Michelle, Barbara, Ted entertain it, but some will not even consider it.

Adam

[Christopher]

Adam,

My thinking in response to your post was whether we should concern ourselves with when the "organism" becomes conscious (i.e. aware of phenomenal experiences) in determining the appropriateness of abortion.

[Selene]

Understood.

"organism" becomes conscious"

conscious as in responding to music for example?

Adam

[Ted Keer]

One thing of which we can be sure is that prior to quickening (the fourth month, when spontaneous coordinated neuron firing occurs) there is no consciousness, hence no objection to abortion. Since no rational healthy woman wakes up after 120 days of pregnancy and discovers that 3 1/2 months of morning sickness was not just indigestion, I see that as a reasonable cut off for arbitrarily killing an innocent human being you created.

[Michelle R]

Ted Keer, on May 30 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

One thing of which we can be sure is that prior to quickening (the fourth month, when spontaneous coordinated neuron firing occurs) there is no consciousness, hence no objection to abortion. Since no rational healthy woman wakes up after 120 days of pregnancy and discovers that 3 1/2 months of morning sickness was not just indigestion, I see that as a reasonable cut off for arbitrarily killing an innocent human being you created.

It IS scary how similar our views are!

[Selene]

I am not surprised, you are both clear thinkers and not wedded to any knee jerk orthodoxy

[galtgulch]

Michelle R, on May 30 2009, 07:54 PM, said:

Ted Keer, on May 30 2009, 08:36 PM, said:

One thing of which we can be sure is that prior to quickening (the fourth month, when spontaneous coordinated neuron firing occurs) there is no consciousness, hence no objection to abortion. Since no rational healthy woman wakes up after 120 days of pregnancy and discovers that 3 1/2 months of morning sickness was not just indigestion, I see that as a reasonable cut off for arbitrarily killing an innocent human being you created.

It IS scary how similar our views are!

Michelle,

The Spartans used to examine newborns and if they in any way didn't measure up were thrown off a cliff and left to die shortly after they were born!

It is curious to me how you decide just where to draw the line based on when scientists have determined "spontaneous neuron firing occurs" whatever that has to do with anything.

Whatever happened to the concept of "potential human being" as opposed to "actual human being?" As Objectivists are we to ignore the "official" definition of human being by the creator of Objectivism who made a rational case for the definition being "a living organism which possesses a volitional, conceptual consciousness?"

I think we all know that even a newborn does not yet have the neuronal development to fulfill that criterion. Which is a justification for enabling a woman upon hearing the advise of her pediatrician about the condition of her newborn to decided whether it should be "put down" in case it clearly suffered from some incurable illness or uncorrectable congenital disease, disability or deformity or whatever.

We have a long way to go before we can say "we are all Spartans now!" Thats an attempt at humor.

It just troubles me when two of you get all giggly because you agree with each other about something.

www.campaignforliberty.com 31 May 6AM 155,145 all of whom share a determination to restore our limited Constitutional Republic.

gulch

This post has been edited by galtgulch: 31 May 2009 - 04:23 AM