A Randian Falacy

[Philip Coates]

> Phil is the Ultimate Solution to All Western (and maybe Eastern) Thought As We Know It.

You're giving me a bit too much credit. I haven't made any major advances in brain surgery or flower arrangement.

[Rich Engle]

"You're giving me a bit too much credit. I haven't made any major advances in brain surgery or flower arrangement. "

I'm sure it's only a matter of time, Objectivist-boy. But if you start out on the brain surgery, using yourself as a test subject (that is the only moral thing to do, of course), be sure to have a flashlight, a mirror, and strong pliers.

rde

Still trying to figure out why Phil thinks I'm a Christian.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Philip Coates]

> if you start out on the brain surgery, using yourself as a test subject (that is the only moral thing to do, of course), be sure to have a flashlight, a mirror, and strong pliers.

If I were to use you as a test subject, I might also have to add a microscope to find the thing. And tweezers (not pliers) to get hold of your entire frontal lobe.

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[kiaer.ts]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[kiaer.ts]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

[Brant Gaede]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Is this a faux Rand quote?

Not one word about human rights.

--Brant

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Is this a faux Rand quote?

Not one word about human rights.

--Brant

Please read correctly before talking about faux quote

I didn't say that I was quoting Rand at all, I said that it is my belief that Rand had an implicit (not explicit) approach

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We should at least look at Rand's words. This is from The Objectivist, October, 1968, "Of Living Death" in which Rand examined the papal encyclical Humanae Vitae of July 25, 1968. The number in parentheses in the quote refers to the paragraph in the encyclical.

This leads us to the encyclical's stand on the issue of abortion, and to another example of inhuman cruelty. Compare the coiling sentimentality of the encyclical's style when it speaks of "conjugal love" to the clear, brusque, military tone of the following: "... we must once again declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun, and, above all, directly willed and procured abortion, even if for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as licit means of regulating birth." (14, italics mine.)

After extolling the virtue and sanctity of motherhood, as a woman's highest duty, as her "eternal vocation," the encyclical attaches a special risk of death to the performance of that duty—an unnecessary death, in the presence of doctors forbidden to save her, as if a woman were only a screaming huddle of infected flesh who must not be permitted to imagine that she has the right to live.

And this policy is advocated by the encyclical's supporters in the name of their concern for "the sanctity of life" and for "rights"- the rights of the embryo. (!)

I suppose that only the psychological mechanism of projection can make it possible for such advocates to accuse their opponents of being "anti-life."

Observe that the men who uphold such a concept as "the rights of an embryo," are the men who deny, negate and violate the rights of a living human being.

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body? The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished.

Here is another quote. It is from The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December 1975, "A Last Survey--Part I."

After calling Ronald Reagan "not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word—i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor," and comparing him to "Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged" she went on to say the following.

This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion.

Not every wrong idea is an indication of a fundamental philosophical evil in a person's convictions; the anti-abortion stand is such an indication. There is no room for an error of knowledge in this issue and no venal excuse: the anti-abortion stand is horrifying because it is non-venal—because no one has anything to gain from it and, therefore, its motive is pure ill will toward mankind.

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.

One method of destroying a concept is by diluting its meaning. Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.

A man who takes it upon himself to prescribe how others should dispose of their own lives—and who seeks to condemn them by law, i.e., by force, to the drudgery of an unchosen, lifelong servitude (which, more often than not, is beyond their economic means or capacity)—such a man has no right to pose as a defender of rights. A man with so little concern or respect for the rights of the individual, cannot and will not be a champion of freedom or of capitalism.

Read that as you wish. I think it is pretty clear that Ayn Rand did not consider an embryo a living human being on a metaphysical level.

No amount of calling opponents of her view "vicious" will stop people from looking at the conceived-but-unborn human being and considering it to be a human being.

If rights are not to apply to the conceived-but-unborn, I'm actually OK with that. I think abortion is a damn shame, but, metaphysically, there is a collision of interests when two human beings occupy the same body. So a proper grounding needs to be made for this. Something like defining when the interests of one take precedence over the interests of the other and deriving rights from that. (The more I think about this, the more I am coming to a "sliding scale" view for this special condition of human existence. That's the only way I see so far to fit both in.)

I'm not OK with excluding the stage of conception to delivery, i.e., growth, from the definition of human being.

If you claim that rights derive from human nature, like Rand does, and you omit something that applies to all human beings (being conceived, growing and being born) from your definition of human, you set your derivation of rights on a foundation of sand. That is a logical crack that will keep this debate from ever being resolved--from an Objectivist basis.

"Vicious" and "inhuman cruelty" and "vicious nonsense" and "unspeakable," and proclamations that are not backed up like "an embryo has no rights" and "a child cannot acquire any rights until it is born" and "a piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term," including the attribution of "potential" to one state and "actual" to another, are all good qua rhetoric, but they do not replace a proper definition of human being.

Ironically, Rand's definition of human being--rational animal--includes her omitted stage right there in the "animal" genus. All animals are conceived (i.e., unique individual DNA comes into being), they grow and they get born. That stage is fundamental to the individual existence of each animal.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Obviously if Rand were still around it would be difficult to discuss this with her. She did place the major emphasis on the first trimester as a way of dismissing overall criticism of her position. That was probably in the Q & A if not that FHF then another.

--Brant

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

I don't want to be rude but I am not interested in discussing unreal "lifeboat" situations...

Why any normal parents would like to kill their baby while its head is still in the birth canal? or a second afterwards?

It sounds more as a crime-scene than actual life, usually an abortion is a very hard decision and has to be made in the early period of pregnancy as far as I know

The main discussions around abortion are about legal issues and there are those ugly anti-abortion groups trying to convince people to push the legal system towards their point of view and against minorities and individual freedom and using those horrible images for punching below the belt and appealing to people's feelings instead to people's reasoning or convictions

But in the end "legal" is not necessarily correct in the philosophical sense. Hitler killed 6 million people "legally" with the authorization of laws from the Congress but it was terribly wrong anyway...

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[kiaer.ts]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

I don't want to be rude but I am not interested in discussing unreal "lifeboat" situations...

Why any normal parents would like to kill their baby while its head is still in the birth canal? or a second afterwards?

It sounds more as a crime-scene than actual life, usually an abortion is a very hard decision and has to be made in the early period of pregnancy as far as I know

The main discussions around abortion are about legal issues and there are those ugly anti-abortion groups trying to convince people to push the legal system towards their point of view and against minorities and individual freedom and using those horrible images for punching below the belt and appealing to people's feelings instead to people's reasoning or convictions

But in the end "legal" is not necessarily correct in the philosophical sense. Hitler killed 6 million people "legally" with the authorization of laws from the Congress but it was terribly wrong anyway...

Unreal "lifeboat" situation? See here.

What rock do you live under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

[Brant Gaede]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Is this a faux Rand quote?

Not one word about human rights.

--Brant

Please read correctly before talking about faux quote

I didn't say that I was quoting Rand at all, I said that it is my belief that Rand had an implicit (not explicit) approach

Excuse me! I asked a question. And I also made a statement you did not address. Please read correctly before replying. Gracias!

--Brant

not one word about human rights

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

I don't want to be rude but I am not interested in discussing unreal "lifeboat" situations...

Why any normal parents would like to kill their baby while its head is still in the birth canal? or a second afterwards?

It sounds more as a crime-scene than actual life, usually an abortion is a very hard decision and has to be made in the early period of pregnancy as far as I know

The main discussions around abortion are about legal issues and there are those ugly anti-abortion groups trying to convince people to push the legal system towards their point of view and against minorities and individual freedom and using those horrible images for punching below the belt and appealing to people's feelings instead to people's reasoning or convictions

But in the end "legal" is not necessarily correct in the philosophical sense. Hitler killed 6 million people "legally" with the authorization of laws from the Congress but it was terribly wrong anyway...

Unreal "lifeboat" situation? See here.

What rock do you live under?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partial-Birth_Abortion_Ban_Act

Late term abortions are statically rare and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 properly addressed what seems to be a murder case because the baby is partially outside the mother, meaning he is partially born.

I think you are making one of the five more common mistakes of men: Confusing rule with exception

Exceptional cases shouldn't be used to decide broad issues

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Obviously if Rand were still around it would be difficult to discuss this with her. She did place the major emphasis on the first trimester as a way of dismissing overall criticism of her position. That was probably in the Q & A if not that FHF then another.

Brant,

That is in "A Last Survey" that I quoted above. Here is the paragraph once again (my bold).

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a "right to life." A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.

Michael

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Is this a faux Rand quote?

Not one word about human rights.

--Brant

Please read correctly before talking about faux quote

I didn't say that I was quoting Rand at all, I said that it is my belief that Rand had an implicit (not explicit) approach

Excuse me! I asked a question. And I also made a statement you did not address. Please read correctly before replying. Gracias!

--Brant

not one word about human rights

The concept "human rights" has unfortunately become an anti-concept. Anyone is using those words to designate whatever they want to push for

For me human rights from a philosophical point of view are the natural rights to life, liberty and property.

Any other "right" has a legal connotation and depends on the particular society you are living on

Some particular societies (in our or previous ages) could eventually give you "wrong" rights or impede your natural rights

PS:

There is an old philosophical argument about what are "natural rights" anyway and wether Objectivism is related to them or not

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[Brant Gaede]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

Is this a faux Rand quote?

Not one word about human rights.

--Brant

Please read correctly before talking about faux quote

I didn't say that I was quoting Rand at all, I said that it is my belief that Rand had an implicit (not explicit) approach

Excuse me! I asked a question. And I also made a statement you did not address. Please read correctly before replying. Gracias!

--Brant

not one word about human rights

The concept "human rights" has unfortunately become an anti-concept. Anyone is using those words to designate whatever they want to push for

For me human rights from a philosophical point of view are the natural rights to life, liberty and property.

Any other "right" has a legal connotation and depends on the particular society you are living on

Some particular societies (in our or previous ages) could eventually give you "wrong" rights or impede your natural rights

PS:

There is an old philosophical argument about what are "natural rights" anyway and wether Objectivism is related to them or not

Thx for the lecture HumanRights 101. I'm talking about what you were talking about before, however, and you weren't talking about rights.

--Brant

zip, nada, nothing

[Tonix777]

Thx for the lecture HumanRights 101...

--Brant

Anytime

Edited August 16, 2010 by Tonix777

[Brant Gaede]

Thx for the lecture HumanRights 101...

--Brant

Anytime

Drat! I cannot battle the phlegmatics!

--Brant

[Darrell Hougen]

The more I think about this, the more I am coming to a "sliding scale" view for this special condition of human existence.

Hi Michael,

Thank you for an excellent post on the subject. I see now that Piekoff's view, that he expressed in his well known essay on the subject, is just a reiteration of Rand's view. So, it was interesting to see exactly what Rand's view was.

I also agree with all of your criticisms of Rand's view. Although I have no problem with early stage abortions, and would therefore be in agreement with Rand and Piekoff on the issue, I don't think that early stage abortions are the only issue at hand and I don't think their argument about the potential versus the actual has done anything to advance our understanding of the issue --- nor did any of Rand's rhetorical excesses on the subject.

Like you, I have been moving towards a sliding scale view of the issue. Such a scale would help understand the rights of children after birth as well. One might ascribe certain rights to a fetus, an infant, a toddler, a child (generically), and a teenager, to use the terms already in use. As examples, a fetus (beyond the first trimester) might have the right to be treated humanely. An infant would have the right to life (which, in this case, means the right not to be killed). The parents of an infant would also be obliged to care for it. As a child grew, he or she would acquire a greater right to freedom of movement, although I'm having a hard time defining exactly what that would be. Clearly, a toddler must be forcibly restrained at times so that he doesn't, for example, run out in the street. As a child acquires the ability to make certain kinds of judgments, there is no reason to restrain him from making certain decisions and he probably should not be restrained from making them. At each stage of development, a child would have rights consistent with his specific nature.

I have a problem with a woman having a late term abortion for no reason other than that she was too lazy to have it earlier. But, in no case, would I call it murder. A fetus and its mother share a single life, the mother's life. The fetus is metabolically dependent upon the mother, not the other way around. However, if the mother has been pregnant for many months, she has had adequate opportunity to choose to end the pregnancy and has chosen not to do so. In the absense of new information about the fetus or the pregnancy (such as information about defects in the fetus or risks to the health of the mother), it is inhumane to wait to have an abortion.

Some people have argued that late term abortions are such a small fraction of abortions that such cases are not worth worrying about and there is no reason to make late term abortion illegal. But, that's sort of like saying that, because husbands rarely kill their wives, there is no reason to make such murders illegal. It is exactly rare and deviant behavior that should concern any discussion of the morality of abortion. If early term abortions were made illegal, one would have an epidemic of illegal abortions. With late term abortion legal, we are subjected to horrifying scenes of brutality pasted on anti-abortion posters. In my view, the proper position lies somewhere in the middle and makes provisions for risks and defects discovered later. Such a position fully considers the rights and obligations of women and the nature of the fetus.

Darrell

[kiaer.ts]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

I don't want to be rude but I am not interested in discussing unreal "lifeboat" situations...

Why any normal parents would like to kill their baby while its head is still in the birth canal? or a second afterwards?

It sounds more as a crime-scene than actual life, usually an abortion is a very hard decision and has to be made in the early period of pregnancy as far as I know

The main discussions around abortion are about legal issues and there are those ugly anti-abortion groups trying to convince people to push the legal system towards their point of view and against minorities and individual freedom and using those horrible images for punching below the belt and appealing to people's feelings instead to people's reasoning or convictions

But in the end "legal" is not necessarily correct in the philosophical sense. Hitler killed 6 million people "legally" with the authorization of laws from the Congress but it was terribly wrong anyway...

Unreal "lifeboat" situation? See here.

What rock do you live under?

http://en.wikipedia....bortion_Ban_Act

Late term abortions are statically rare and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 properly addressed what seems to be a murder case because the baby is partially outside the mother, meaning he is partially born.

I think you are making one of the five more common mistakes of men: Confusing rule with exception

Exceptional cases shouldn't be used to decide broad issues

Statistically rare has nothing to with being a hypothetical case about which one cannot even theorize. In any case, it was because I had responded to your man versus fetus dichotomy as banal that I asked you to explain what you yourself view as a borderline case. Your response seems to be that you don't want to draw a line anywhere because debating it would be inconvenient - or maybe you just didn't understand the question. No problem. You can stick with your a fetus is not a man position if you find it adequate for your needs.

[Tonix777]

Did you note that in Ayn Rand's novels and essays there are no children?

I am the proud father of a two years old, smart, curious, beautiful son that is the light of my life, however I agree with Rand in an important point that I believe she made implicitly in her approach to Philosophy:

A person isn't born as a person, it takes a long process to become a person

Here my central question is:

Are children really "persons" in the full philosophical sense of the word about what Objectivism speaks?

Are they free to choose?

Are they capable of bearing responsibility for their acts?

Can they live to their own effort?

In any case at which age?

At some hard-to-define point between 10 and 20 years old a child become a man depending on his life's circumstances, it is a slow gradual process that takes years to happen, from the very moment of birth until you are capable to face existence by your own.

In fact in most countries the law says that you are some kind of "property" of your parents until at least 15 years old or more.

In most modern western cultures by example you are nor free to choose even the color of your shoes until you are 8 or 10 or your religion until you are 12, nor your high-school, your ideas, or your bedroom until you are 14 or more, and your parents are responsible for your crimes in front of the law until you are 16 or 18.

So for me a fetus is definitely not a man. And this is the main reason why I am not against abortion: an unborn baby is not yet a person in the total sense of the word, he is a "promise" for a future person.

A child is not a man either. Does that mean that you agree with the Romans that it is okay for a father to kill his children at will?

You need to define your terms, and to avoid equivocation - the use of the same word like "man" in two different senses.

My point is indeed that is is not easy to define what is a Man. it depends from your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values

From a legal point of view in our age & civilized western societies you can't kill your children, because legally you are a person since the very moment of birth

But besides the legal aspects that as you pointed have varied trough ages I believe that any Man is a work-in-progress since he is born, so your philosophical axioms and ethical basic values decide where to draw the line.

For me in particular this line is far from the moment of birth so a fetus is philosophically not a Man even when the law can say so in some societies

But you are still using the word man. That's not very helpful. Do you hold that it is okay to kill a baby during delivery, while its head is still in the birth canal? How about 1 second afterwards? I am not interested in your opposite poles of man and fetus. Tell me where your borderline case lies.

I don't want to be rude but I am not interested in discussing unreal "lifeboat" situations...

Why any normal parents would like to kill their baby while its head is still in the birth canal? or a second afterwards?

It sounds more as a crime-scene than actual life, usually an abortion is a very hard decision and has to be made in the early period of pregnancy as far as I know

The main discussions around abortion are about legal issues and there are those ugly anti-abortion groups trying to convince people to push the legal system towards their point of view and against minorities and individual freedom and using those horrible images for punching below the belt and appealing to people's feelings instead to people's reasoning or convictions

But in the end "legal" is not necessarily correct in the philosophical sense. Hitler killed 6 million people "legally" with the authorization of laws from the Congress but it was terribly wrong anyway...

Unreal "lifeboat" situation? See here.

What rock do you live under?

http://en.wikipedia....bortion_Ban_Act

Late term abortions are statically rare and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 properly addressed what seems to be a murder case because the baby is partially outside the mother, meaning he is partially born.

I think you are making one of the five more common mistakes of men: Confusing rule with exception

Exceptional cases shouldn't be used to decide broad issues

Statistically rare has nothing to with being a hypothetical case about which one cannot even theorize. In any case, it was because I had responded to your man versus fetus dichotomy as banal that I asked you to explain what you yourself view as a borderline case. Your response seems to be that you don't want to draw a line anywhere because debating it would be inconvenient - or maybe you just didn't understand the question. No problem. You can stick with your a fetus is not a man position if you find it adequate for your needs.

You are right, it is adequate for my needs, since knowledge is infinite, even about a specific object/subject

But I have learned a lot from this topic so I probably owe a deeper contribution just for the sake of theorizing as you said

1-My man versus fetus dichotomy is not as banal as it seems, since there are people out there saying that one is Man from the very instant of conception when you are only a couple of cells together

I guess those are probably religious people based more on dogma than on reason?

2-I will definitely draw the line in the moment of birth, it is a crucial milestone in the development of a Man, when he becomes a body functioning autonomously and separated from the mother in the very symbolic act of cutting the umbilical cord. The just born baby however only has a autonomous body not yet a mind, he only possesses the basic emotions of joy and pain and some primitive reflexes and instinct for initial survival, so he is not yet a Man in the full sense if we define Man as a Conscious Animal.

Animal meaning an autonomous living organism with specific characteristics and needs. Conscious meaning having a mind which is gradually acquired by the newborn in the months, years and decades to come

In this matter I have come to agree with the excellent posts of Michael and Darrell in general and specifically about the "sliding scale" idea, which is in tune BTW with my initial broader concept of Man being a work-in-progress

Edited August 17, 2010 by Tonix777

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This visual is pretty cool.

Kinda like adding modern art to the discussion...

[Tonix777]

This visual is pretty cool.

Kinda like adding modern art to the discussion...

What about this one? symbolizing "Modern Objectivism"