Danneskjold

Abortion

Recommended Posts

.......

You have read Atlas Shrugged right?

I'm not going to spoil the whole thing for you, but basically Ayn Rand herself must've had alot of pentup sexual frustration and rape fantasy. Cause basically it came down to

Man: I'm gonna' rape you till you see the error of your socialist ways!

Woman: omgz it worked! But rape me some more anyway you big, strong, man!

Like I said. A troll and a bastard too!

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
.......

You have read Atlas Shrugged right?

I'm not going to spoil the whole thing for you, but basically Ayn Rand herself must've had alot of pentup sexual frustration and rape fantasy. Cause basically it came down to

Man: I'm gonna' rape you till you see the error of your socialist ways!

Woman: omgz it worked! But rape me some more anyway you big, strong, man!

That is flat out false. Shame on you!

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bring this back, but I was just thinking about this:

The government's job is to protect life, not potential life (or you'd have to bad contraception).

They say dogs are about as smart as two year old humans, yet it's legal to put a dog to sleep if nobody wants it.

If a two year old and a dog are intellectual equals, what's the difference between the two? Is it not the potential for the two year old to become an adult?

A dog is protected as property of its owner, not as a person. Is a two year old any more than a potential person?

As an adult, I look at me being conceived, not being aborted, and not being murdered as a two-year-old equally. "Phew... I'm glad the condom broke/I wasn't aborted/I wasn't murdered."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry to bring this back, but I was just thinking about this:

The government's job is to protect life, not potential life (or you'd have to bad contraception).

They say dogs are about as smart as two year old humans, yet it's legal to put a dog to sleep if nobody wants it.

If a two year old and a dog are intellectual equals, what's the difference between the two? Is it not the potential for the two year old to become an adult?

A dog is protected as property of its owner, not as a person. Is a two year old any more than a potential person?

As an adult, I look at me being conceived, not being aborted, and not being murdered as a two-year-old equally. "Phew... I'm glad the condom broke/I wasn't aborted/I wasn't murdered."

"They say," you say. I have two clear thinking memories from when I was 2 1/2.

--Brant

woof!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that says more about the intelligence of dogs than that of two year old humans.

The reason abortion is wrong, to me, is the potential life, not the life that is. If a fetus was not going to grow into a baby and later into an adult, nobody would care. A permanent fetus would be relatively unimportant.. we slaughter more intelligent things all the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that says more about the intelligence of dogs than that of two year old humans.

The reason abortion is wrong, to me, is the potential life, not the life that is. If a fetus was not going to grow into a baby and later into an adult, nobody would care. A permanent fetus would be relatively unimportant.. we slaughter more intelligent things all the time.

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

Fetus and shit have the same status. They are property produced in the body of the owner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps that says more about the intelligence of dogs than that of two year old humans.

The reason abortion is wrong, to me, is the potential life, not the life that is. If a fetus was not going to grow into a baby and later into an adult, nobody would care. A permanent fetus would be relatively unimportant.. we slaughter more intelligent things all the time.

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

Fetus and shit have the same status. They are property produced in the body of the owner.

Ba'al Chatzaf

First you de-personalize then you kill. That's what happened to the Jews culminating in the Holocaust. Yours is not an argument for abortion and a fetus is not "shit." You are right about philosophy at least as far as you are concerned. It's worthless.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First you de-personalize then you kill. That's what happened to the Jews culminating in the Holocaust. Yours is not an argument for abortion and a fetus is not "shit." You are right about philosophy at least as far as you are concerned. It's worthless.

--Brant

Arumentum ad miscordium. Shame on you!

The Jews of Germany were not Hitler's property to be disposed of. Neither were they the property of his anti-semite buddies.

False analogy! Shame on you!

You did not address the main proposition I put forth to wit, fetuses (which are inside women) are their property because their bodies made them.

Shame on you !

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main argument: I basically agree with you. I heartily disagree with your inability to make any nuanced representations of the abortion issue. If you don't call the fetus "shit," I won't mention what the Nazis did to the Jews, who were compared to vermin. The right to life cuts deeper than the right to property, although I'm not saying the fetus has a right to life.

My attack on you: What do you expect posting on what is essentially a philosophical list explicitly denigrating philosophy whenever you can, usually gratuitously. That's an implicit attack on all who post on it, including yourself ex-math and some of your science representations. On this you are not a hypocrite, just purblind. While what I said doesn't particularly belong in that post, that's what happens every now and then when you manage to really piss me off. I realize, however, that the way your brain works you don't find mentions of "shit" quite so off putting as I do.

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the date rape flap and now this. Someone needs to give Doctor Peikoff his “late in life talk.” Leonard Peikoff un-philosophically channeled through BaalChatzaf wrote:

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

end quote

A scientist would say the identity of a water molecule inside a person is no different from the identity of a water molecule outside a person. So, a baby lying inside its mother and later, lying in a bassinette after separation from its mother, is likewise the same. Why is location important? Its location inside or outside the mother is only important as a legal distinction, but not as a scientific distinction. Doctor Peikoff, does location change the law of identity? No. I agree with Ayn Rand, that there IS a legal status change at birth. But the law of identity states that “What is: is.

If you disagree imagine this emergency room scenario. Three women are in the emergency room. One woman gives birth “naturally.” One woman has a Caesarian Section. One woman has a miscarriage. But in each case the baby is viable. The shift changes and new doctors and nurses enter the ER and observe all three babies in incubators. Would they observe any difference in the three baby’s, rights bearing, personhood? Of course not, and Rand would agree. All three are persons. Location does not change the law of identity.

Let us extend our ER scenario to four viable babies. What if a woman’s intent is to kill her baby by abortion? Does intent change the law of identity? No. If a baby is viable but is separated from its mother by abortion it is still the same as a viably born, naturally delivered baby. It has the same identity as a viably born baby miscarried, or a viable baby born through Caesarian Section. The shift changes and the new medical personnel see four babies in incubators and the doctors and nurses all agree that those four babies are all the same: rights bearing individuals, endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think the evidence shows Ayn Rand and true Objectivists agree with this analysis.

I hope Leonard and the channeled Ba’al will recover from their loss of objectivity.

Peter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Main argument: I basically agree with you. I heartily disagree with your inability to make any nuanced representations of the abortion issue. If you don't call the fetus "shit," I won't mention what the Nazis did to the Jews, who were compared to vermin. The right to life cuts deeper than the right to property, although I'm not saying the fetus has a right to life.

My attack on you: What do you expect posting on what is essentially a philosophical list explicitly denigrating philosophy whenever you can, usually gratuitously. That's an implicit attack on all who post on it, including yourself ex-math and some of your science representations. On this you are not a hypocrite, just purblind. While what I said doesn't particularly belong in that post, that's what happens every now and then when you manage to really piss me off. I realize, however, that the way your brain works you don't find mentions of "shit" quite so off putting as I do.

--Brant

Of course I am purblind. I am an Aspie. My purblindness is genetic. And I do not do nuanced. That is totally out of my reach.

I am crude and straightforward.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the date rape flap and now this. Someone needs to give Doctor Peikoff his “late in life talk.” Leonard Peikoff un-philosophically channeled through BaalChatzaf wrote:

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

end quote

A scientist would say the identity of a water molecule inside a person is no different from the identity of a water molecule outside a person. So, a baby lying inside its mother and later, lying in a bassinette after separation from its mother, is likewise the same. Why is location important? Its location inside or outside the mother is only important as a legal distinction, but not as a scientific distinction. Doctor Peikoff, does location change the law of identity? No. I agree with Ayn Rand, that there IS a legal status change at birth. But the law of identity states that “What is: is.

If you disagree imagine this emergency room scenario. Three women are in the emergency room. One woman gives birth “naturally.” One woman has a Caesarian Section. One woman has a miscarriage. But in each case the baby is viable. The shift changes and new doctors and nurses enter the ER and observe all three babies in incubators. Would they observe any difference in the three baby’s, rights bearing, personhood? Of course not, and Rand would agree. All three are persons. Location does not change the law of identity.

Let us extend our ER scenario to four viable babies. What if a woman’s intent is to kill her baby by abortion? Does intent change the law of identity? No. If a baby is viable but is separated from its mother by abortion it is still the same as a viably born, naturally delivered baby. It has the same identity as a viably born baby miscarried, or a viable baby born through Caesarian Section. The shift changes and the new medical personnel see four babies in incubators and the doctors and nurses all agree that those four babies are all the same: rights bearing individuals, endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think the evidence shows Ayn Rand and true Objectivists agree with this analysis.

I hope Leonard and the channeled Ba’al will recover from their loss of objectivity.

Peter

This issue is a tangled mess of ethical issues and pragmatic implications. As immoral as you may take Ba'al's position to be, the alternative seems even worse. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to agree with him. The woman has control, anything else is unacceptable.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First the date rape flap and now this. Someone needs to give Doctor Peikoff his “late in life talk.” Leonard Peikoff un-philosophically channeled through BaalChatzaf wrote:

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

end quote

A scientist would say the identity of a water molecule inside a person is no different from the identity of a water molecule outside a person. So, a baby lying inside its mother and later, lying in a bassinette after separation from its mother, is likewise the same. Why is location important? Its location inside or outside the mother is only important as a legal distinction, but not as a scientific distinction. Doctor Peikoff, does location change the law of identity? No. I agree with Ayn Rand, that there IS a legal status change at birth. But the law of identity states that “What is: is.

If you disagree imagine this emergency room scenario. Three women are in the emergency room. One woman gives birth “naturally.” One woman has a Caesarian Section. One woman has a miscarriage. But in each case the baby is viable. The shift changes and new doctors and nurses enter the ER and observe all three babies in incubators. Would they observe any difference in the three baby’s, rights bearing, personhood? Of course not, and Rand would agree. All three are persons. Location does not change the law of identity.

Let us extend our ER scenario to four viable babies. What if a woman’s intent is to kill her baby by abortion? Does intent change the law of identity? No. If a baby is viable but is separated from its mother by abortion it is still the same as a viably born, naturally delivered baby. It has the same identity as a viably born baby miscarried, or a viable baby born through Caesarian Section. The shift changes and the new medical personnel see four babies in incubators and the doctors and nurses all agree that those four babies are all the same: rights bearing individuals, endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think the evidence shows Ayn Rand and true Objectivists agree with this analysis.

I hope Leonard and the channeled Ba’al will recover from their loss of objectivity.

Peter

When does a baby become a person? Whether it's inside or outside of the whom is irrelevant, because in neither case is it a person at that point.

Actually, it's more accurate to say the government's job is to protect the life of persons, rather than life in general.

Share this post


Link to post
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...