Ron Paul is not pro choice on abortion.

[Wolf DeVoon]

Thank you, Barbara. I sincerely appreciate your comment.

Wolf

[Barbara Branden]

No death camps in North America. We send foreign born fifth columnists abroad where they will be killed eventually.

Ba'al Chartzaf

How thoughtful. Hitler, too, preferred to have his death camps out of the country and in Poland, rather than in Germany where the stench of burning human flesh might possibly be offensive.

I'm through discussing this. It sickens me.

Barbara

[Brant Gaede]

The United States is about freedom not about emulating Nazi Germany or Imperial Rome. The world, however, is about fields of influence governed by force not always covered by enough veneer to effect the desired disguise. Political philosophy--or simply philosophy--is an attempt in reference to Anglo countries to harness and direct such force as it can to supposedly beneficent ends we might call "civilization."

--Brant

[studiodekadent]

Native born Muslims will present a bit of a legal problem. They will have to be watched very closely and excluded from certain critical occupations.

I feel sick.

[Chris Grieb]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

[Brant Gaede]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

Well, Bob eschews philosophy except, it seems, when he talks about abortion. As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions? If he was going anywhere he would have been elected governor of Texas a long time ago. Then he would have enough gravitas to stand on.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions?

--Brant

Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent?

As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level.

--Dustan

[Brant Gaede]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions?

--Brant

Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent?

As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level.

--Dustan

It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions?

--Brant

Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent?

As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level.

--Dustan

It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything.

--Brant

I would say philosophy is centered around the individual, like Ayn's is. He is a student of Mises/Hayek economically and is also a student of Ayn Rand philosophically. Politically is believes we need to stick to the constitution. I have have not found any inconsistencies with his politically philosophy with objectivism, except for the issue of abortion and immigration. As for abortion it is not philosophical difference, just a difference in recognizing when life begins.

On abortion, Ayn Rand stated that the fetus was a glob of tissue similar to an organ and the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body therefore abortion is the right of the woman. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is a life and just like any other individual deserves the protection from aggression, therefore abortion = murder. Both conclusions use the same philosophical reasoning (protection of the individual from society). Ayn always said that if two arguments are in contradiction and both are reasonable, check the premises. The premise that is in contradiction is the first, whether the fetus is life. This is where the only reasonable debate of the abortion issue is located. It has nothing to do with rights of women, because the rights of one person cannot be a premise to kill an innocent. If a fetus is truly a glob of tissue then no one in their right mind would care what was done with it. But on the other hand if the fetus is life, then it has the same rights as everyone else regardless of physical location. You cannot argue the pro-choice stance while holding that the fetus is a life (unless you are willing to accept Bob's reasoning that we should make lampshades and hamburgers of our children if we are so disposed) and the pro-life position doesn't even have a name if holds that there is no life (any argument from a religous stand point is unreasonable).

Some may try to hold the pro-choice position and claim the fetus is a life by saying that the fetus is a parasite, but this is also not true. The fetus does not invade the woman but was created and placed there by the two individuals reproducing, if anything the fetus is a victim (even in the case of rape or incest the fetus is a victim just like the woman). Just because one creates a life does not mean that they should be able to destroy it (without once again holding Bob's philosophical outlook). Also to create is to assume a responsibility.

Therefore the entire debate is about the status of the fetus.

Almost all of the ideas above Ron Paul lays out in his book on the abortion issue.

Can anyone who is pro-choice point out any problems with this reasoning. I ask this with an open mind not with the intent to demonize anyone.

On the immigration issue. I know that objectivism holds the stance of open borders. Ron Paul believes that since our nation is sovereign it has a right to defend its borders and decide who is admitted. He is not for closing the borders, but for protecting the borders. He is fearful a terrorist could come across that border and wants to prevent that from happening. Right now he claims that the illegal immigrants in this country are being used as scape goats for other people economic situation because we don't live in a free market economy. He has said time and time again that if we were able to get back to a free market economy much like what we had in the 19th century then we would need all of the immigrants that would come and that when that happens we should take as many as we can get, but because of the security situation of the world we have to screen those people first to make it more difficult for those that want to destroy our lives from coming in.

Hope this helps.

-Dustan

[Kevin Haggerty]

But Dustan,

If a life is wholly dependent on another life for existence itself--I mean wholly and literally--do they truly have a separate, individual existence?

Shouldn't a person have the right to say "no" to such an arrangement? Pull the plug, so to speak? The situation puts the mother in a position not so much to murder the fetus as to withhold her body from it--a strange form of murder, to say the least. Bringing a baby to term is also a risk and a personal sacrifice. What you're arguing seems to be a moral obligation of a pregnant woman to sacrifice a portion of her life for another individual.

I disagree that the only reasonable debate is whether the fetus is "life" or not. If that were the debate, the pro-life folk would simply win (which is why such folk always frame the debate in such terms). The issue is not whether the fetus is alive or not (of course it is), nor even whether it is "human" or not (of course it is), but whether or not it is an individual (which it clearly is not for quite some time).

Sure, if the fetus is viable, the mother is killing an individual and has infringed upon that individual's rights. But before the fetus is viable, I would argue, it is not an individual life separate from it's mother's and so lacks individual rights.

-Kevin

[Brant Gaede]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions?

--Brant

Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent?

As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level.

--Dustan

It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything.

--Brant

I would say philosophy is centered around the individual, like Ayn's is. He is a student of Mises/Hayek economically and is also a student of Ayn Rand philosophically. Politically is believes we need to stick to the constitution. I have have not found any inconsistencies with his politically philosophy with objectivism, except for the issue of abortion and immigration. As for abortion it is not philosophical difference, just a difference in recognizing when life begins.

On abortion, Ayn Rand stated that the fetus was a glob of tissue similar to an organ and the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body therefore abortion is the right of the woman. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is a life and just like any other individual deserves the protection from aggression, therefore abortion = murder. Both conclusions use the same philosophical reasoning (protection of the individual from society). Ayn always said that if two arguments are in contradiction and both are reasonable, check the premises. The premise that is in contradiction is the first, whether the fetus is life. This is where the only reasonable debate of the abortion issue is located. It has nothing to do with rights of women, because the rights of one person cannot be a premise to kill an innocent. If a fetus is truly a glob of tissue then no one in their right mind would care what was done with it. But on the other hand if the fetus is life, then it has the same rights as everyone else regardless of physical location. You cannot argue the pro-choice stance while holding that the fetus is a life (unless you are willing to accept Bob's reasoning that we should make lampshades and hamburgers of our children if we are so disposed) and the pro-life position doesn't even have a name if holds that there is no life (any argument from a religous stand point is unreasonable).

Some may try to hold the pro-choice position and claim the fetus is a life by saying that the fetus is a parasite, but this is also not true. The fetus does not invade the woman but was created and placed there by the two individuals reproducing, if anything the fetus is a victim (even in the case of rape or incest the fetus is a victim just like the woman). Just because one creates a life does not mean that they should be able to destroy it (without once again holding Bob's philosophical outlook). Also to create is to assume a responsibility.

Therefore the entire debate is about the status of the fetus.

Almost all of the ideas above Ron Paul lays out in his book on the abortion issue.

Can anyone who is pro-choice point out any problems with this reasoning. I ask this with an open mind not with the intent to demonize anyone.

-Dustan

You are mixing up "rights" with "life." "Life" doesn't mean "Life has a right to life." Rights appertain to human social existence, which the fetus doesn't have. "Rights" are a human invention. They are "natural" because they are reflective of human nature and needs. They are real only if codified. The fetuses "right to life" means initiating force against the woman. To say as Ron Paul says that she can't have a morning-after pill is a moral obscenity. If she has a right to take such a pill then she has a right to an abortion. If the debate is within that context then I am willing to discuss this further. If not, not.

--Brant

Edited July 22, 2007 by Brant Gaede

[Aggrad02]

But Dustan,

If a life is wholly dependent on another life for existence itself--I mean wholly and literally--do they truly have a separate, individual existence?

Shouldn't a person have the right to say "no" to such an arrangement? Pull the plug, so to speak? The situation puts the mother in a position not so much to murder the fetus as to withhold her body from it--a strange form of murder, to say the least. Bringing a baby to term is also a risk and a personal sacrifice. What you're arguing seems to be a moral obligation of a pregnant woman to sacrifice a portion of her life for another individual.

I disagree that the only reasonable debate is whether the fetus is "life" or not. If that were the debate, the pro-life folk would simply win (which is why such folk always frame the debate in such terms). The issue is not whether the fetus is alive or not (of course it is), nor even whether it is "human" or not (of course it is), but whether or not it is an individual (which it clearly is not for quite some time).

Sure, if the fetus is viable, the mother is killing an individual and has infringed upon that individual's rights. But before the fetus is viable, I would argue, it is not an individual life separate from it's mother's and so lacks individual rights.

-Kevin

Kevin,

Thank you very much for this insight, I hadn't thought about it in this way. I will have more to think about.

But off the top of my head I can see a couple of problems. And maybe you can address some of these issues while I consider them myself.

It seems that this line of thought is avoiding responsibility. We all have responsibilities when we make obligations to other people. Whether it is a promise or a contract.

What responsibility do the parents have for creating the life? Remember that pregnancy is not spontaneous, it is a result of a willful act (except in the case of rape of course).

What is the difference between the obligation to give part of your life while the life is inside the mother, and giving part of your life after the life is outside the mother? Basically what is the difference between this and abandoning the child after birth? Remember that naturally babies are fed through breast milk, which is not much different than an umbilical cord (both take nutrients from the mother). Taking care of a baby is actually much more difficult, time consuming and takes more sacrifice than carrying a baby to term. The baby is still literally dependent on another individual of some sort for life, for a very long time after birth. It seems this argument slips back to Bob's brutality.

How would you determine when the fetus is viable when the exact science of such a thing cannot be determined exactly? (For example my wife was born three months premature, she weighed less than 2 pounds but survived, one of my managers that works for me was also born three months premature (she was a twin) and weighed 1 pound 4 ounces and also survived (her sister did also)). As technology advances who knows what will be viable.

Also there is difference between withholding nutrients from a fetus, thereby killing it and grinding it up. One is passive and one is aggressive. How could justification for one be justification for another?

And finally back to Paul's candidacy, how would the disagreement about whether abortion should only be legal when the fetus is inviable or not at all (a vary narrow time frame), be enough to cause someone to vote against Paul, when his argument is philosophically consistent and all of the other political stances are very positive, especially in light of the other candidates that are either fascist or communist. Also consider this in light of the fact that Dr. Paul does not believe that this should be federal issue but a state issue. i.e. the question above about when a fetus is viable should be handled by the states and not the federal government. Dr. Paul also is not politically against the morning after pill since at that time pregnancy cannot be determined, he also believes that changing the chemical composition of the body to prevent implementation is not a willful act of aggression. These pills can work up to 4 weeks after sexual intercourse and provide the woman an option if accidents occur. He also believes that this pills should be available over-the-counter making access easy.

Thanks for the insights,

Dustan

[Brant Gaede]

Just a minute! "The pregnancy can't be determined"! So what? There is a house. I cannot determine if there is anyone in there. So I throw in a hand grenade and kill someone. I am not morally culpable?

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

Two points;

Moderator;

We are very far from the topic on Ron Paul on abortion.

Bob; You are beginning to get boring.

As for Ron Paul on abortion, does he also eschew philosophy deferring to his various ad hoc positions?

--Brant

Brant can you clarify this question for me? What positions do you find of Rep. Paul's that are not consistent with his philosophy? Immigration? Abortion? And why do you think those positions are inconsistent?

As to the Governorship of Texas. Remember we had GWB from '94-2002. Then the Lt. Gov. Perry got to assume the position for two years after GWB won the presidency, and has won re-election without facing primary challenges twice (even though Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison wants the position badly she has been waiting). Also, I don't think that Rep. Paul has any interest in being a governor, the biggest concern of Dr. Paul has been the erosion of the Constitution and there is not much you can do about the Federal government at the state level.

--Dustan

It's just that I don't know what his philosophy is other than--conservative/libertarian, political something or the other. I don't know what ties him down. As for abortion, since he thinks it is wrong from a-z beginning with conception I have to not have any real interest in him for anything.

--Brant

I would say philosophy is centered around the individual, like Ayn's is. He is a student of Mises/Hayek economically and is also a student of Ayn Rand philosophically. Politically is believes we need to stick to the constitution. I have have not found any inconsistencies with his politically philosophy with objectivism, except for the issue of abortion and immigration. As for abortion it is not philosophical difference, just a difference in recognizing when life begins.

On abortion, Ayn Rand stated that the fetus was a glob of tissue similar to an organ and the woman has a right to do what she wants with her body therefore abortion is the right of the woman. Ron Paul on the other hand believes that the fetus is a life and just like any other individual deserves the protection from aggression, therefore abortion = murder. Both conclusions use the same philosophical reasoning (protection of the individual from society). Ayn always said that if two arguments are in contradiction and both are reasonable, check the premises. The premise that is in contradiction is the first, whether the fetus is life. This is where the only reasonable debate of the abortion issue is located. It has nothing to do with rights of women, because the rights of one person cannot be a premise to kill an innocent. If a fetus is truly a glob of tissue then no one in their right mind would care what was done with it. But on the other hand if the fetus is life, then it has the same rights as everyone else regardless of physical location. You cannot argue the pro-choice stance while holding that the fetus is a life (unless you are willing to accept Bob's reasoning that we should make lampshades and hamburgers of our children if we are so disposed) and the pro-life position doesn't even have a name if holds that there is no life (any argument from a religous stand point is unreasonable).

Some may try to hold the pro-choice position and claim the fetus is a life by saying that the fetus is a parasite, but this is also not true. The fetus does not invade the woman but was created and placed there by the two individuals reproducing, if anything the fetus is a victim (even in the case of rape or incest the fetus is a victim just like the woman). Just because one creates a life does not mean that they should be able to destroy it (without once again holding Bob's philosophical outlook). Also to create is to assume a responsibility.

Therefore the entire debate is about the status of the fetus.

Almost all of the ideas above Ron Paul lays out in his book on the abortion issue.

Can anyone who is pro-choice point out any problems with this reasoning. I ask this with an open mind not with the intent to demonize anyone.

-Dustan

You are mixing up "rights" with "life." "Life" doesn't mean "Life has a right to life." Rights appertain to human social existence, which the fetus doesn't have. "Rights" are a human invention. They are "natural" because they are reflective of human nature and needs. They are real only if codified. The fetuses "right to life" means initiating force against the woman. To say as Ron Paul says that she can't have a morning-after pill is a moral obscenity. If she has a right to take such a pill then she has a right to an abortion. If the debate is within that context then I am willing to discuss this further. If not, not.

--Brant

Brant,

See my post above in response to Kevin about how Dr. Paul does not believe in banning the morning after pill and the reason why.

Also see in that post the question about responsibility of the parents.

Also I don't believe you can claim that the fetus is initiating force against the woman. The parents created the life and placed it inside the woman, isn't that an act of force? If anything is an act of force it is the male inserting his semen inside the woman. Both people know what the result could be. The formation of the ovum and the implantation in the uterus is a logical and preordained conclusion to the male's intrusion into the vagina and releasing his seed. The fetus is created in an act of force by the male with the consent of the female.

Edit: (An expansion of this thought) I do not see a conflict between the mother and the fetus because the situation of both the mother and fetus was created by the parents not by the fetus.

I honestly don't see how the act of birth changes anything.

How does your argument not apply to newborn babies or young children? (Honest question)

Please understand that I am not trying to necessarily convince anyone of anything (other than to vote for Ron Paul ). What I am trying to do is to better form my opinion of this matter. In my heart I want to accept Kevin's position of allowing inviable abortions, but principally I can not justify supporting it.

Thank you for discussing this with me.

-Dustan

Edited July 22, 2007 by Aggrad02

[Aggrad02]

Just a minute! "The pregnancy can't be determined"! So what? There is a house. I cannot determine if there is anyone in there. So I throw in a hand grenade and kill someone. I am not morally culpable?

--Brant

You took what I said out of context. Rep. Paul did not say that the person would not be morally culpable, he believes that using this pill in that manner would morally wrong. The whole last paragraph was about his political stance. Since the pregnancy cannot be determined, there can be no proof of aggression, so the person would not be legally culpable. Also that chemical is used for things other than abortion, (for example, it is also used to regulate hormones and has other beneficial uses as well), so Paul believes that banning the pill is irresponsible and government intrusion.

-Dustan

[Brant Gaede]

I'll continue tomorrow. I'd rather have another drink now.

--Brant

[Aggrad02]

I'll continue tomorrow. I'd rather have another drink now.

--Brant

That is cool. Once again thanks for discussing. I have enjoyed discussing with you and Kevin.

--Dustan

[Dragonfly]

Please limit the amount you quote to that what is necessary. Six nested quotes is a waste of space.

[Kevin Haggerty]

Hey Dustan,

Thank you for your very civil reply.

Here's what I got for ya: first of all, there is no promise or contract implicit in pregnancy. A girl of 14 can become pregnant, but what contract can she reasonably be held liable for? In fact, one can become pregnant with absolutely no knowledge of how conception is achieved. Also, pregnancy is not a definite outcome of sexual intercourse in any case, only a possibility. Even pregnancies reabsorb and miscarry on their own, not infrequently. So pregnancy is never a simple matter of choice. So we are gonna force a woman to accept full responsibility for an outcome that might or might not happen? Her bad luck being the cause of lifelong moral responsibility?

Okay, and I see no need to suppose that a fetus "initiates force" on anyone--remember, my contention is that the fetus does not constitute an individual--separate it from the mother and it will cease to be. And, no, I will never accept that the mere act of penetration is an initiation of force! Yikes!

And the difference between a woman inducing a miscarriage and a mother abandoning a child, is that the child is an individual, one that another person could care for and raise, for instance. Nobody can take over the pregnancy of a 2 month pregnant woman who wishes to opt out. There is no option for her but either to have the baby or abort the fetus. I hear you say "adoption, etc." but adoption does not solve the problems of a 2 month pregnant woman who no longer wants to be pregnant; a woman who's life is already being disrupted mightily, who's viability as a wage earner, for instance, may very well be at stake. Would you force such a woman to continue to carry an unwanted fetus...how much of such force is okay with you? A week? A month? Six?

I'm good with determining viability in the most obvious way--what's medically possible? As medical science advances, as younger and younger fetuses become viable, great! Viability is viability. Seems pretty simple to me. Why do folks find this stuff so mysterious?

And good gravy, who's "grinding up" babies? What's with the pro-life horror jargon? You and I are not arguing about late stage abortions here. Most cultures throughout history have recognized that a baby exists upon "quickening"--not a bad start in my view. Again, seems pretty straight forward. Sure, a D & C is "aggressive," but you can say that of any surgical procedure. Initiation of force is not a categorical problem. A tonsillectomy is an initiation of force against the innocent tonsil and building a house is an initiation of force against the lot where it's built. Initiation of force is only a problem when it infringes upon the rights of one or more individual human beings--individual. No individual? No actionable force.

And finally, as to your problem with folks saying no to Dr. Paul's candidacy based on his stance on abortion, I can only speak for myself. His stance on abortion is a huge disappointment to me, because I find his view (to coin a phrase) mystical. I find his reasoning marred--even ruled--by an emotional reaction. The same reasoning could drive a man to seek to outlaw red meat after visiting a meat processing plant. And for the guy to condemn all abortion because he witnessed a late stage procedure that prolly shouldn't be legal anyway looks like an hysterical overreaction. And finally, if he really thinks a fetus has individual rights at the moment of conception, he ain't being rational at all.

That said, were he to get the nomination, I'd prolly end up voting for the man, because his personal shortcomings in this arena--which I don't take at all lightly--would have little weight in legal terms and his positions on other matters would recommend him ahead of pretty much everyone else in the field.

-Kevin

[Ross Barlow]

Kevin wrote:

“I'm good with determining viability in the most obvious way--what's medically possible? As medical science advances, as younger and younger fetuses become viable, great! Viability is viability. Seems pretty simple to me. Why do folks find this stuff so mysterious?”

I agree with this, Kevin.

I do not remember what libertarian said this or where I first read about it, but the following is my remembrance of the gist of the argument:

Through time, the morality of abortion shifts its detailed formulation (regarding a timetable in the fetus’s status in its lifespan as fetus) according to something close to Kevin’s “viability.” The libertarian writer that I am remembering mentioned medical science Past, Present and Future as the critical criteria. Along with this idea of an evolving medical science is the idea of most people’s evolving ideas on the details of the morality of abortion as time goes on.

In the past, when a fetus was not viable before a normal birth when it could survive on its own solely because of its advanced development, then abortion almost anytime before birth was generally okay. Even though all people might not agree with this in the past, the idea still made some sense in the historical milieu, although it was usually something not talked about.

In the present, when medical science can keep fetuses alive that are quite premature and that could not have been saved in the past, then a more complicated criteria is needed to define when abortion is okay, e.g., after the third trimester. It is still a complicated issue that will not find total agreement.

In the future, when it may be possible to save and nurture a very early embryo by medical scientific means in the lab (and when everyone, including a mother who does not want responsibility for raising a child, assumes that this potentially viable human can be adopted), then abortion would be considered to be killing an actually potential human life. The assumption here is that the mother would submit to a cesarean or some other means of non-lethal means of “delivery” to save the fetus, who has – because of the advanced medical techniques available – a very real chance of living an individual human life. Again, the exact details of at what time in its lifespan a fetus is viable is a complicated question.

People are usually uncomfortable about taking the life of a “baby.” So the point here is that the idea of when an early developing fetus is really a viable baby and a potential human being with human rights will always be an evolving concept as medical science advances. And not everybody will agree on the details. But a general consensus will evolve.

-Ross Barlow.

[studiodekadent]

Ross,

Maybe the standard should not be fetal viability in the sense of "viable to survive biologically" but viable in the sense of "viable to survive human qua human." i.e. viable in the sense of "if removed from the mother's womb overwhelmingly likely to survive with full human cognitive capabilities."

The fetus when inside the womb is alive, biologically. But not only is their means of survival 'parasitic' but for certainly the first trimester and possibly the second, said fetus is not fully developed, etc. The point of biological viability is considered to be 23 weeks (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_of_viability) which means that the second trimester is nearly elapsed (and at that time, there is a significant chance of developmental problems and brain damage), so I think that it is fair to say one is not ending a human life up until the end of the second trimester.

Can Neonatal ICU's increase the chance of avoiding brain damage (from lack of development rather than post-birth factors) significantly?

[Wolf DeVoon]

It has nothing to do with rights of women

This would be more persuasive if argued by a woman, and I think the distinction matters.

W.

[BaalChatzaf]

People are usually uncomfortable about taking the life of a “baby.” So the point here is that the idea of when an early developing fetus is really a viable baby and a potential human being with human rights will always be an evolving concept as medical science advances. And not everybody will agree on the details. But a general consensus will evolve.

-Ross Barlow.

Medical technology is irrelevant. A fetus is a parasite which preys on its female host. The female has every right to remove it if she so desires. Going full term to birth is hazardous. Women do die in childbirth. The statistical risk from a first semester abortion is one tenth that of going to term. The government has no business telling a woman how much risk she should assume. Neither does society.

Life, in and of itself, does not imply rights. Bacteria, viruses and tumors are alive. They have no rights.

Potential is irrelevant in this connection. Every human baby has the potential to grow up and become a serial killer. Arguing from potential leads to the interesting notion of killing babies in self defense against serial murder. Potential argues that every acorn be treated like a piece of oak furniture. NOT! Potential, as such, does not bestow rights.

Ron Paul believes in subordinating the rights of real live grown up women to the potential of a parasitic fetus to become a human being, if it is permitted to do so. Ron Paul's view is categorically flawed and all other issues aside I would not trust him to be chief executive of the Republic. His views on abortion contradict the ninth amendment to the Constitution. One of the unenumerated rights we all have is the right to self defense. Abortion is an instance of self defense. Is this man fit to be President?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Aggrad02]

Kevin,

I understand a lot of what you are saying and I am thinking on it more. I think I am pretty comfortable supporting abortions to an inviable fetus legally (for me personally I would never want my spouse to have an abortion at any stage but that is a different matter).

I still have a problem with part your response about the difference between a fetus and newborn. I think placing the standard on the question of being an individual is fine, but the part about someone having the ability to care for a child other than the mother being the threshold is problematic. There is a responsibility of parents to their children, and just because someone else can take them does not justify abandonment. I am not saying giving your children is to someone who can take care of them better than you is a bad thing, but giving/abandoning your children just because you don't feel like putting up with them is horrendous.

--Dustan

P.S. Also think a little harder about sex and force. Sex is a very forceful act. Think on it hard and you will see. Think of the mythology about sex, our attitudes about the role of the genders in sex, description of sex in novels and paintings.

[Aggrad02]

It has nothing to do with rights of women

This would be more persuasive if argued by a woman, and I think the distinction matters.

W.

Wolf,

I thought long and hard about that when I wrote it and figured someone would say something along these lines about this. I agree that it would be more persuasive if argued by a woman, but I don't think the distinction matters. What is the difference between this and an African American saying Caucasians cannot discus racial issues because they are not black, or the poor person saying I cannot discuss poverty because I am not poor. This would severely limit the amount of topics one could talk about.

--Dustan

P.S. Please Please Please go through with your idea of coming back to the US and starting a radio show in NY. We need more independent minded intellectuals and thinkers in our society.