Hello

[Hazard]

Thank you for the consideration, Bill. Actually, I am quite pleased that my welcome has turned into a full blown debate. I enjoy such an environment.

Gulch,

If you consider a human as "a living organism which possesses a volitional conceptual consciousness" then I would not consider myself as a human a year and a half ago! So does this mean that I was simply a living organism without rights, not actually human, until I was 16? I know that technically I had a decisive conception of my own consciousness, but I was such a pitifully brainless lemming back then that I wouldn't consider it as such. No logical proof there, just a thought.

From a more logical vantage point:

The US Constitution did not create the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; it just identified them. Thus, the Constitution is not proof that a fetus does not qualify as a human. If the Constitution did create our rights, then does that mean that anyone who is not American does not have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Jordan

[galtgulch]

Thank you for the consideration, Bill. Actually, I am quite pleased that my welcome has turned into a full blown debate. I enjoy such an environment.

Gulch,

If you consider a human as "a living organism which possesses a volitional conceptual consciousness" then I would not consider myself as a human a year and a half ago! So does this mean that I was simply a living organism without rights, not actually human, until I was 16? I know that technically I had a decisive conception of my own consciousness, but I was such a pitifully brainless lemming back then that I wouldn't consider it as such. No logical proof there, just a thought.

From a more logical vantage point:

The US Constitution did not create the rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness; it just identified them. Thus, the Constitution is not proof that a fetus does not qualify as a human. If the Constitution did create our rights, then does that mean that anyone who is not American does not have a right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness?

Jordan

Jordan,

I appreciate that you are pleased and enjoy the debate you caused by your bursting onto the pastoral scene so disruptively with your "Hello!"

Human beings possess a volitional conceptual consciousness about which we may say that it takes time and maturation, practice and focus, encouragement helps as well as the further development outside the womb of the central nervous system, meaning the brain. So it is virtually undetectable at birth which does raise some interesting questions I will leave for another discussion.

I have a son and saw him close up every day. I recall the moment when he said a word which suggested to me that he had grasped the meaning of the sound of the word. He was just over one year of age during the first year he slept and slept and slept and ate. Once he started to be beyond that baby stage he was intense in all his playing and it was clear in our interactions that he was able to think.

So I will agree only that the teenage years can be a trial and a virtual gauntlet with so much happening at once. But although you characterize yourself as less than human perhaps because you were not exercising your conceptual consciousness nevertheless you retained that capacity undoubtedly all your life even as a small boy just like my son.

Having the capacity and exercising it are two different things. Nothing in nature compels any of us to think but one always has the option. I doubt that "brainless lemming" would have sprung to my mind had I encountered you then.

There is a difference between an human ovum and the ova of other species. Likewise there is a difference between a human embryo and the embryos of other species. A human fetus is a human fetus as well. I am not saying that a fetus is not human, if it is a human fetus. I am just arguing that it is only meaningful to attribute the concept of possession of

"rights" until birth.

A newborn is rather still dependent for the fulfillment of its needs. But given the care, attention and certain psychological as well as physical stuff it needs it will reach the point where it can be fully independent sometimes whether it is properly nurtured or not.

A newborn is physically independent of its mother at birth but still depends on her for so much.

Our rights are based on our nature as human beings so sure everyone on the planet whether their own government recognizes their rights or not, still has the rights of a human being.

"24" is about to start so I will end this here.

gulch

[bradbradallen]

Human beings possess a volitional conceptual consciousness about which we may say that it takes time and maturation, practice and focus, encouragement helps as well as the further development outside the womb of the central nervous system, meaning the brain. So it is virtually undetectable at birth which does raise some interesting questions I will leave for another discussion.

Gulch,

If what you are implying that one must have a "volitional conceptual consciousness" in order to re-enforce your pro-choice argument, I can easily see why that could be a debate thread in and of itself. It all stems to the "When does life begin" argument, if I am reading into your response properly.

I have a son and saw him close up every day. I recall the moment when he said a word which suggested to me that he had grasped the meaning of the sound of the word. He was just over one year of age during the first year he slept and slept and slept and ate. Once he started to be beyond that baby stage he was intense in all his playing and it was clear in our interactions that he was able to think.

So I will agree only that the teenage years can be a trial and a virtual gauntlet with so much happening at once. But although you characterize yourself as less than human perhaps because you were not exercising your conceptual consciousness nevertheless you retained that capacity undoubtedly all your life even as a small boy just like my son.

Having the capacity and exercising it are two different things. Nothing in nature compels any of us to think but one always has the option. I doubt that "brainless lemming" would have sprung to my mind had I encountered you then.

There is a difference between an human ovum and the ova of other species. Likewise there is a difference between a human embryo and the embryos of other species. A human fetus is a human fetus as well. I am not saying that a fetus is not human, if it is a human fetus. I am just arguing that it is only meaningful to attribute the concept of possession of

"rights" until birth.

A newborn is rather still dependent for the fulfillment of its needs. But given the care, attention and certain psychological as well as physical stuff it needs it will reach the point where it can be fully independent sometimes whether it is properly nurtured or not.

A newborn is physically independent of its mother at birth but still depends on her for so much.

Our rights are based on our nature as human beings so sure everyone on the planet whether their own government recognizes their rights or not, still has the rights of a human being.

"24" is about to start so I will end this here.

gulch

In reading your reply in completion, I fail to completely understand the message you are trying to convey. Are you stating that a fetus does not have human rights until it is birthed and, by your definition, an infant? Are you trying to say that only when a child can conceptualize their consciousness of their own will can they be classified as a being entitled to the natural rights of humans?

Brad

[syrakusos]

In reading your reply in completion, I fail to completely understand the message you are trying to convey. Are you stating that a fetus does not have human rights until it is birthed and, by your definition, an infant? Are you trying to say that only when a child can conceptualize their consciousness of their own will can they be classified as a being entitled to the natural rights of humans?

Brad

Yes. That's right. No one wants to admit that life begins at conception because the logical conclusion is that until Gulch's son said the first word, killing "it" would only have been a late term abortion. When does a mother lose the right to terminate her "pregnancy"? I could argue for never. Your Mom always has the right to kill you.

A newborn baby is ever more dependent than an unborn baby because everything is automatic for the unborn.

The philosopher and psychologist Julian Jaynes suggested that "humans" did not have a conceptual "self" until after the invention of writing. Furthermore, from that assertion, it is easy to suggest that many "people" today still do not. They live in a non-conceptual, non-self-ish way by imitating others. How can they do that? Jaynes asks you if have ever driven to work or home and been preoccupied and gotten to your destination "on auto pilot" without consciously driving there. Before the invention of writing everyone lived like that and many people still do. Are they "people" or is is a taxonomic fallacy to say that all featherless bipeds are human?

The answer is: Who knows? Could be anything... depending on your definitions... The best arguments for allowing abortions are that the life of the mother is "more important" than the life of the baby. By what standard? Only being able to -act-. Ultimately, might makes right: if you cannot act to assert your rights -- at least to claim that you have them -- then you do not have rights. Gulch -granted- his son protection. Until Gulch, Jr., asserts his rights, however, he just a post-birth fetus.

In many times and places infanticide was the norm as being safer for the mother than an abortion. Do you know the story of Oedipus, placed on a mountainside with his feet pierced and tied together. In Alexandria, Egypt, in Roman times, there was a field where unwanted babies were left to die and sometimes Romans came along and adopted them, whether as heirs or slaves, I do not know.

Were the "rights" of the babies being violated? In service or deferrence to which more important rights?

In all my years, I have never heard or invented a complete and consistent answer to any of it. At best, our actions are purely pragmatic, and not objectively moral.

[galtgulch]

Human beings possess a volitional conceptual consciousness about which we may say that it takes time and maturation, practice and focus, encouragement helps as well as the further development outside the womb of the central nervous system, meaning the brain. So it is virtually undetectable at birth which does raise some interesting questions I will leave for another discussion.

Gulch,

If what you are implying that one must have a "volitional conceptual consciousness" in order to re-enforce your pro-choice argument, I can easily see why that could be a debate thread in and of itself. It all stems to the "When does life begin" argument, if I am reading into your response properly.

I have a son and saw him close up every day. I recall the moment when he said a word which suggested to me that he had grasped the meaning of the sound of the word. He was just over one year of age during the first year he slept and slept and slept and ate. Once he started to be beyond that baby stage he was intense in all his playing and it was clear in our interactions that he was able to think.

So I will agree only that the teenage years can be a trial and a virtual gauntlet with so much happening at once. But although you characterize yourself as less than human perhaps because you were not exercising your conceptual consciousness nevertheless you retained that capacity undoubtedly all your life even as a small boy just like my son.

Having the capacity and exercising it are two different things. Nothing in nature compels any of us to think but one always has the option. I doubt that "brainless lemming" would have sprung to my mind had I encountered you then.

There is a difference between an human ovum and the ova of other species. Likewise there is a difference between a human embryo and the embryos of other species. A human fetus is a human fetus as well. I am not saying that a fetus is not human, if it is a human fetus. I am just arguing that it is only meaningful to attribute the concept of possession of "rights" until birth.

A newborn is rather still dependent for the fulfillment of its needs. But given the care, attention and certain psychological as well as physical stuff it needs it will reach the point where it can be fully independent sometimes whether it is properly nurtured or not.

A newborn is physically independent of its mother at birth but still depends on her for so much.

Our rights are based on our nature as human beings so sure everyone on the planet whether their own government recognizes their rights or not, still has the rights of a human being.

"24" is about to start so I will end this here.

gulch

In reading your reply in completion, I fail to completely understand the message you are trying to convey. Are you stating that a fetus does not have human rights until it is birthed and, by your definition, an infant? Are you trying to say that only when a child can conceptualize their consciousness of their own will can they be classified as a being entitled to the natural rights of humans?

Brad

Brad,

I recall in this context something which I observed while working in a county hospital years ago. A nurse had mistakenly given an injection of Morphine to a young 18 year old boy instead of to the elderly man who was dying of cancer and was in pain from metastases into his bones. The boy had been cared for by his mother all his life with profound disabilities. He had the most severe form of cerebral palsy imaginable. He was profoundly retarded to the point where he was barely conscious at all. He was completely deaf and blind. He was unable to move his limbs and they were all withered and atrophied. He was unable to utter a sound and could not speak. Yet his mother had cared for him with no hope that he would ever, ever be able to do anything for himself nor even be aware of what was going on around him. The Morphine suppressed his respirations to about four per minute and it was a near death experience. I could only wonder whether the mother allowed the thought to enter her mind that she might be relieved of what must have been an unbearable emotional burden she had carried for so many years.

The anesthesiologist administered the antidote and breather for him until his respirations returned to normal.

I do not know what went on when he had been born and surely expect that in the Catholic town of Buffalo NY the mother thought it was her cross to bear and that god gives one burdens to bear or some such...

We all know that the Spartans would examine newborns and if they didn't measure up in some way they would be cast off a cliff.

The Princeton philosophy professor Peter Singer has been quoted as saying that newborns had no right to life and that it was up to the mother whether they were kept alive or not, or something like that.

I have witnessed a state facility filled with babies who were braindead from either birth deformities like hydrocephalus, microcephaly, severe Downs, or survived encephalitis with profound brain damage. All kept alive, given up by their families, ...

For the most part it is nobodies business but the mother, certainly no business of mine, nor yours, nor that of the state. I know I am not making this clear but I have to get to bed to get some sleep.

I encountered a young married woman who works where I do and she had a little baby a year or two ago. She had left the job but recently got it back after working elsewhere. She eagerly showed me the picture of her baby daughter, now about two and she is the most adorable little girl, full of life, with an intelligent look in her eyes and a glowing smile. I know how her mother feels because I once had a little boy like that and recall feeling the same way when she said with feeling, "I love her!"

Yes I did bring her up to date about the Campaign For Liberty and told her we in C4L are trying to lift the burden of Obama's huge debt from her daughter's shoulders. She told me she wanted to talk to me more about it when we have the time.

www.campaignforliberty.com 27 Apr 149751

Also there are now 92 cosponsors for Ron Paul's HR 1207 Federal Reserve Transparency Act

gulch

[bradbradallen]

Yes. That's right. No one wants to admit that life begins at conception because the logical conclusion is that until Gulch's son said the first word, killing "it" would only have been a late term abortion. When does a mother lose the right to terminate her "pregnancy"? I could argue for never. Your Mom always has the right to kill you.

Michael,

First off, the mother never has the right to take the life of an unborn fetus, which I believe begins at conception. The only way for a human being to no longer have his / her right to life is for them to have violated someones right to life. (Murder, etc.)

A newborn baby is ever more dependent than an unborn baby because everything is automatic for the unborn.

The philosopher and psychologist Julian Jaynes suggested that "humans" did not have a conceptual "self" until after the invention of writing. Furthermore, from that assertion, it is easy to suggest that many "people" today still do not. They live in a non-conceptual, non-self-ish way by imitating others. How can they do that? Jaynes asks you if have ever driven to work or home and been preoccupied and gotten to your destination "on auto pilot" without consciously driving there. Before the invention of writing everyone lived like that and many people still do. Are they "people" or is is a taxonomic fallacy to say that all featherless bipeds are human?

The answer is: Who knows? Could be anything... depending on your definitions... The best arguments for allowing abortions are that the life of the mother is "more important" than the life of the baby. By what standard? Only being able to -act-. Ultimately, might makes right: if you cannot act to assert your rights -- at least to claim that you have them -- then you do not have rights. Gulch -granted- his son protection. Until Gulch, Jr., asserts his rights, however, he just a post-birth fetus.

In many times and places infanticide was the norm as being safer for the mother than an abortion. Do you know the story of Oedipus, placed on a mountainside with his feet pierced and tied together. In Alexandria, Egypt, in Roman times, there was a field where unwanted babies were left to die and sometimes Romans came along and adopted them, whether as heirs or slaves, I do not know.

Were the "rights" of the babies being violated? In service or deferrence to which more important rights?

In all my years, I have never heard or invented a complete and consistent answer to any of it. At best, our actions are purely pragmatic, and not objectively moral.

And in response to the end of your statement, while that is a very valid point, I think it comes down to a matter of principal. The baby has the right to life, and by the people not aborting the child, they are respecting the right of the baby. But that is not the sole responsibility of the parent, for, while keeping the child and neglecting its existence and needs may be the greater of two evils (in reference to abortion as the lesser of the two), it is still wrong.

Brad

[Selene]

Bravo.

Well put.

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

First off, the mother never has the right to take the life of an unborn fetus, which I believe begins at conception. The only way for a human being to no longer have his / her right to life is for them to have violated someones right to life. (Murder, etc.)

Wrong. A fetus is grown inside the woman using her energy, time and nutrients. The fetus is her property just as the garden she grows in soil she owns is her property. Second of all a fetus is NOT a person so it has no rights. Only persons have rights. Third, the fetus is a threat to the woman's life and she has the say as to how much hazard to her life and health she will risk. No one else has that say. Not even the father of the fetus.

You are dead wrong three ways and you only made one statement. Pretty good score.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Once again, Ba'al your analogy has merit.

"No one else has that say. Not even the father of the fetus."

However, that 1) does not mean it is THE answer. And 2) Unless I missed it, this does not answer my example of the couple, who are objectivist lawyers, agree before even becoming pregnant, that the "life" they are having all that fun creating, shall belong to both of them.

This is a real ante-"nuptial" contract.

What say you?

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Once again, Ba'al your analogy has merit.

"No one else has that say. Not even the father of the fetus."

However, that 1) does not mean it is THE answer. And 2) Unless I missed it, this does not answer my example of the couple, who are objectivist lawyers, agree before even becoming pregnant, that the "life" they are having all that fun creating, shall belong to both of them.

This is a real ante-"nuptial" contract.

What say you?

Adam

Property can be disposed of in a way agreeable to all concerned parties. Such a contract resolves all ambiguities so it is a good thing.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Right.

Thanks for agreeing.

So you will also agree that the clause in the contract that gives the non-pregnant citizen/individual a non-delegateable veto on any abortion during this pregnancy would also apply, unless the life of the pregnant citizen/individual would also be enforceable, yes?

Adam

[bradbradallen]

Wrong. A fetus is grown inside the woman using her energy, time and nutrients. The fetus is her property just as the garden she grows in soil she owns is her property. Second of all a fetus is NOT a person so it has no rights. Only persons have rights. Third, the fetus is a threat to the woman's life and she has the say as to how much hazard to her life and health she will risk. No one else has that say. Not even the father of the fetus.

You are dead wrong three ways and you only made one statement. Pretty good score.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

First and foremost, humans (Yes, that INCLUDES the unborn fetus) are in no way, shape, or form "Property". The only truth to your quote is the fact that persons do have rights. If you are to propose that a fetus is, by any means, not a human, you cannot consider people such as invalids or the disabled people either, in extreme cases such as those close-to, if not in a vegetative state.

And, granted that a fetus could very well be a hazard to the woman, the woman has to take responsibility for any health issues the pregnancy may cause her, seeing as pregnancy is a known repercussion of sexual intercourse. The child may be hazerdous to her health, but it is a risk a woman should know going into a pregnancy. Lack of that knowledge is ignorance on her part.

Once again, Ba'al your analogy has merit.

"No one else has that say. Not even the father of the fetus."

However, that 1) does not mean it is THE answer. And 2) Unless I missed it, this does not answer my example of the couple, who are objectivist lawyers, agree before even becoming pregnant, that the "life" they are having all that fun creating, shall belong to both of them.

This is a real ante-"nuptial" contract.

What say you?

Adam

Adam,

Regardless of any arguments placed, or any circumstances any two people come to terms with before entering a pregnancy, once the egg is fertilized, another human being is now in play with his own set of unalienable rights, in essence, voiding the contract of any two individuals who came to any sort of terms prior to the pregnancy. Unless they can by some means get the approval of the developing fetus...

Brad

[Selene]

Brad:

I understand.

I am attempting to eliminate certain arguments from the opposing point of view.

I believe that if the position that they are advocating is solely and exclusively based on discriminating the fetus from a conscious living entity, I want them to draw the line.

You will notice how difficult the job has been to draw that line and defend it.

I believe that is because your statement as to the beginning of life is valid.

Now, would you murder one entity to save the older entity and if so on what criteria?

I find this issue to be the most difficult issue to achieve logical clarity about.

Adam

[bradbradallen]

Brad:

I understand.

I am attempting to eliminate certain arguments from the opposing point of view.

I believe that if the position that they are advocating is solely and exclusively based on discriminating the fetus from a conscious living entity, I want them to draw the line.

You will notice how difficult the job has been to draw that line and defend it.

I believe that is because your statement as to the beginning of life is valid.

Now, would you murder one entity to save the older entity and if so on what criteria?

I find this issue to be the most difficult issue to achieve logical clarity about.

Adam

Adam,

I think it is under no circumstances acceptable to take the life of an entity without his / her / it's consensus, unless, as stated earlier in an arguing post, one entity has voided his / her / it's right to life.

Brad

[BaalChatzaf]

Adam,

I think it is under no circumstances acceptable to take the life of an entity without his / her / it's consensus, unless, as stated earlier in an arguing post, one entity has voided his / her / it's right to life.

Brad

Only persons have rights. That pretty well leaves out bugs and other vermin. I have no qualms about swatting a fly whether or not it is bothering me. I have no qualms about eating the flesh of a steer,deer,lamb,fowl or fish, even though the critter never threatened me. If the flesh is tasty when cooked I will eat it.

I assume you are a full bore vegetarian? Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited April 28, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[bradbradallen]

Only persons have rights. That pretty well leaves out bugs and other vermin. I have no qualms about swatting a fly whether or not it is bothering me. I have no qualms about eating the flesh of a steer,deer,lamb,fowl or fish, even though the critter never threatened me. If the flesh is tasty when cooked I will eat it.

I assume you are a full bore vegetarian? Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

No. I eat meat without regard to the animal. But a fetus is nothing even close to an animal. I fail to see how the two are even comparable.

And I take it you are willing to become a cannibal, so long as the flesh is properly seasoned?

Brad

Edited April 28, 2009 by bradbradallen

[BaalChatzaf]

And I take it you are willing to become a cannibal, so long as the flesh is properly seasoned?

Brad

You take it wrong. I won't eat the flesh of persons.

As I said only persons have rights. That means non-persons have none.

Do you have any difficulty determining who is a person and what is not?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[bradbradallen]

You take it wrong. I won't eat the flesh of persons.

As I said only persons have rights. That means non-persons have none.

Do you have any difficulty determining who is a person and what is not?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I believe the one with the difficulty of determination is yourself, not I.

Brad

[syrakusos]

I have no qualms about swatting a fly whether or not it is bothering me. I have no qualms about eating ...

Some animals eat plants. Some animals eat other animals. Some eat both. As far as I know, no animal survives as does a plant, by osmosis, capillarity and photosynthesis. When we run into vegans -- not the ones really frrom Vega, but the non-meat eaters -- we tell them that carrots have feelings, too. That usually stops the discussion we were not having anyway.

That said, I do not kill anything I do not eat or that does not threaten me. Yesterday, I disinfected a kitchen cupboard that had gotten wet and moldy. You have to do that. But when it comes to flies, I chase them back outdoors. Spiders go into the plants unless they are big enough to leave footprints, then they go outside, too. I do not kill wantonly.

Do you eat the flies you kill, oh Baal Zevuv, Lord of the Flies?

[Dragonfly]

In der Not frisst der Teufel :devil: Fliegen.

[BaalChatzaf]

Do you eat the flies you kill, oh Baal Zevuv, Lord of the Flies?

No I don't. I find them disgusting. That is a matter of aesthetics, not morality.

I prefer the flesh of fish, fowl and mammal, thank you. And of the mammals those that cheweth the cud and parteth the hoof.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[syrakusos]

Michael,

First off, the mother never has the right to take the life of an unborn fetus ... The baby has the right to life, and ... Brad

So, is a miscarriage manslaughter?

[bradbradallen]

You take it wrong. I won't eat the flesh of persons.

As I said only persons have rights. That means non-persons have none.

Ba'al,

Would you then eat the flesh of an unborn fetus, so long as it fancies your taste? Seeing as you are taking the position that a fetus is not a persons, I see no reason why you would object to it.

Brad

[tjohnson]

Wow, this is that strangest thread I ever saw in the Meet and Greet section! Better move it to ethics section maybe?

[Dragonfly]

Wow, this is that strangest thread I ever saw in the Meet and Greet section! Better move it to ethics section maybe?

Or in the Meat and Eat section?