equality72521

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

Bad definition. I was talking at 12 months of age. One of my grandchildren was talking at 11 months of age. The only talking animal (in the sense of making sense with speech) is the human.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Parrot

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

The problem is that you are still stuck on the fetus. When a frog dies and you electrocute a limb the limb moves, movement of body parts does not mean personhood. personhood requires identity, while all that you said is true and is indeed a prerequisite of personhood it is not itself personhood.

A one month old posses no identity, no self-awareness which is the pivotal point of identity. A one month old has no more self-awareness than a puppy possibly less. So what I am saying is that until the infant posses a level of awareness greater than that of an animal there should be no problem putting it down.

The problem is not that I am stuck on anything. The problem is that you are not making coherent statements relatable to concrete facts. Contradicting me doesn't amount to explaining yourself. Please just do what I asked and give your own version of the relevant developmental timeline and what you think are the relevant issues.

Definitions:

* A person is someone who has the characteristics of rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness.

*The ability to make rational decisions is what differentiates personhood from non-personhood.

*When the infant reaches that threshold of self awareness greater than an animal they are then disqualified from post-term abortions.

*There is a specific threshold which an infant reaches (at 20 months) where their level of awareness is greater than that of an animal.

*Until an infant reaches said level of development they can be put down just like any animal.

I am sorry, but now I am even more confused. Can you break down what you think happens in simple sentences. preferably in order from first to last temporally?

For instance, I believe, roughly:

Limbs and muscles develop.

Nerves grow out from the spine to the various muscles, as well as into the brain.

The muscles begin to twitch due to local electrical activity, and various sense cells to fire due to physical stimulus.

And now the nerves, which in part by chance, have grown to connect, say, the right hand, to a part of the brain that maps to the sensorimotor-homonculus, are strengthened by feedback, as motion and sensation of motion set up a feedback loop.

While nerves which accidentally connect the hand to the auditory cortex die due to lack of feedback.

And more and more highly integrated systems of motion and sensation develop from the bottom up.

Leading eventually to high level unification of pain and pleasure and sense and motion and memory systems as a unified self.

Since the body maps necessary for the emergence of a self, which is the unified sensation and coordination of the body, cannot exist prior to this integration,

There can be no person prior to the spontaneous movement of the limbs.

Hence no person, no hierarchically unified mental entity, exists before the limbs move in a way coordinated by the brain, instead of just local muscle twitches.

Also, I don't get your point with the puppy. What does a puppy lack that a fetus has?

The problem is that you are still stuck on the fetus. When a frog dies and you electrocute a limb the limb moves, movement of body parts does not mean personhood. personhood requires identity, while all that you said is true and is indeed a prerequisite of personhood it is not itself personhood.

A one month old posses no identity, no self-awareness which is the pivotal point of identity. A one month old has no more self-awareness than a puppy possibly less. So what I am saying is that until the infant posses a level of awareness greater than that of an animal there should be no problem putting it down.

Equality,

I think you are grasping at straws.

You have a standpoint on gay marriage that is a traditionalist, conservative, one - and post facto, you are trying to justify it via Objectivist/libertarian principles("soul-body dichotomy"!)

Your "marriage implies children" is rationalized, and fallacious.

Of course the state should have nothing, or the minimum to do with marriage - but that's goes for all marriage, and everything private and personal.

I don't fully understand homosexual relations (then again, I don't fully understand heterosexual ones either ), but by their nature -as we know now- and by their choice, it is Objectively sound, I am convinced, that two adults have the moral right to form that union we have 'traditionally' called marriage.

Tony

http://www.beliefnet.com/News/2004/05/A-Gay-Mans-Case-Against-Gay-Marriage.aspx

BY: Michael Bronski

The best argument against same-sex marriage is the argument against marriage.

I've been a gay activist since the gay-liberation Stonewall Riots in 1969, and today I'm a visiting professor of gay and lesbian studies at Dartmouth College. I'm often asked why gay men and lesbians are fighting for same-sex marriage, and my answer is always the same: I don't really know. To me, the fight for same-sex marriage seems not so much shortsighted as beside the point.

Don't get me wrong. I completely support giving gay men and lesbians the right to partake of civil marriage, and the basic economic benefits that come with it, simply as a matter of equality under the law. Within a generation most states will likely follow Massachusetts' bold lead and insure marriage equality for all couples. It's a no-brainer: states that don't allow gay men and lesbians access to the legal status given to heterosexuals blatantly discriminate.

What I don't understand is why gay men and lesbians want to get married. The unswerving fight that gay men and lesbians have waged for marriage equality has been predicated largely on the idea that traditional marriage is the best possible form a relationship can take. For gay-marriage advocates, marriage carries the gold seal of approval: however loving, fruitful, or productive other relationships are, they are, by definition, not as good as marriage.

This is curious, given how deeply ambivalent heterosexuals are about marriage. It's there in the 50 percent divorce rate, the high rates of spouse and child abuse, the incidence of adultery-check the record of the congressmen who voted for the Defense of Marriage Act, never mind average couples. Despite their distinct 1950s ring, jokes about balls-and-chains still abound, and the famous Mae West quip, "Marriage is an institution, I'm just not ready for an institution yet," still gets laughs.

What makes gay people think marriage will work better for them? It probably won't.

I'm not the sort of gay activist who thinks everything heterosexuals do is wrong. I see "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy" as a show about five busybodies who interfere in other people's lives with intrusive product placements. I also recognize that some marriages work marvelously: my parents' 50 wonderfully happy years together ended only with my mother's death a few years ago. But as it is practiced in the United States, we can all agree that marriage is not perfect, and for so many of us marriage no longer suits our current emotional or social needs. We-homosexuals and heterosexuals alike-might do better by spending some time rethinking how we want to live our emotional and sexual, private and public lives.

Humans, straight and gay, have an amazing capacity for invention. In the past decades, we have seen myriad variations of expanded and extended families. These have had their flaws, too, but many have worked as well as, if not better, than traditional marriages. By the very fact that we have been forced into the position of outsiders, gay men and lesbians have invented new ways of forming community, of shaping and living our lives. Deprived of the right to traditional marriage, we have proven we can get along without it very well.

Gay-marriage proponents argue we should end these experiments, some saying marriage will "civilize" gay people by making us act more responsibly toward one another. William N. Eskridge titled his 1996 book "The Case for Same-Sex Marriage: From Sexual Liberty to Civilized Commitment." Well, that just seems silly to me. Heterosexual marriage has not guaranteed better behavior once men and women tied the knot. Not incidentally, it is deeply homophobic to imply that gay people cannot and do not act decently or "civilized" now.

Other gay activists point to the benefits civil marriage brings in the form of tax breaks, inheritance arrangements, access to health care, and guaranteeing loans and credit. But we need to find a way to ensure that these are available to all people, not just those who decide to marry.

Much of the discussion about same-sex marriage concerns deeper economic and social-justice issues: health care, raising children, and protecting family units from outside forces, especially poverty. But these too aren't really the concern of marriage. If you want to ensure that all families are secure and safe, if you want children to be healthy, and well fed and safe, there is plenty to do. You can fight for universal health care or a higher minimum wage, for a negative income tax that will benefit anyone living close to or under the poverty line, for federally funded childcare, for federal funding to pay parents (both mothers and fathers) who choose to work at home caring for their children. When it comes to fighting for social justice, the right to traditional civil marriage seems pretty low on the agenda.

The gay-marriage movement isn't about these things. Nor it is about commitment or the sanctity of marriage. It is about sentiment and the power of advertising. People-gay and straight, but especially women-have a profound emotional attachment to the idea of marriage. (It is no surprise that close to 75 percent of couples who have applied for same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco and now in Massachusetts are lesbians.) It is what we have always known, and we have a difficult time thinking of any other way to organize our lives. We also live in a culture that has a multibillion-dollar wedding industry, which inundates us everyday with the message that we will only be happy when we are married.

Equality under the law is nothing to scoff at. But will it make gay men and lesbians happier? In the long run, I doubt it. At least no happier than they are now, and certainly no happier, or unhappier, than heterosexuals. Now that we have it, I wonder if people will think it was worth the fight.

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

I don't get your point.

my point is that quickening does not occur simply because of muscle spasms or primal body movement. quickening occurs at when personhood begins which cannot begin until there is identity which cannot occur until self awareness. until there there is no such thing as a person but only a body without mind. at best it is an animal who should be given no more than concern than a puppy you would put down.

There is absolutely no possibility of consciousness prior to quickening. The nerve circuits which develope an integrated body awareness require positive feedback from muscle movement to integrate themselves. We can allow abortion pre-quickening without fear of destroying a person. Premies bely the idea that something happens at 9 months other than a change of address.

Ted

You have not yet addressed the question of personhood which I have raised. Personhood does not begin until self awareness which is the point of quickening.

personhood requires personality which is not possible until selfawareness which requires the slate to be filled with enough data for the subject to be able to distinguish between self and others.

Robert, people in comas can breath on their own even if they are legally brain dead. Your position is absurd, and indefensible. While I now respect Ted for his consistency (though he is not fully consistent yet.) Your position is clearly a position looking for a justification.

"As I suspected."

And exactly what does that mean, Hammer?

My non-civil union marriage ceremony, 6/2010, www.uucfm.org , Reverend Allison Farnum.

Marriage is between a man and a woman. If an objectivist couple decide to get married that is fine I am not objecting to that what I am saying is that CU's should be more desireable because it more or less removes the state.

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

Alright, I see where you get the "anti-concept" from now.

(I haven't been following this thread closely.)

But still, I don't see the problem.

First, your re-naming of 'gay marriage', borders, imo, on word-play and semantics.(Where is GS when you need him?) What's in a name - the concept is the thing. Language is always growing, and it is very debatable that it's becoming "perverted."

Second, why can't a concept be broadened? As more knowledge comes our way - eg, with human sexuality - previous concepts can and should subsume more, surely?

The traditional meaning of marriage entailed a man and a woman appearing before priest, rabbi, etc., in a ritual that sanctified their lifelong union in the eyes of God.

So they could have sex, children, and companionship; and to make a holy commitment for each other's sake; and be socially acceptable to others.

Now,today, what if two atheists wish to marry? Or, a hetero couple who definitely don't want children? Or, a homosexual couple who feel they have the right to a church wedding, and might adopt chidren? What about the fair probability of divorce, as one more break with tradition?

Or any combination of the above.

We have evolved a long way from "traditional marriage."

For me now, the core concept of *marriage* is: two adults who choose one another in love. That's all.

Everything else - sex included,btw, Ted - is secondary.

Instead of an anti-concept, this simply becomes an expanded concept. Rights in law should follow suit.

You are missing some very important aspects of this (or any) conversation. what is the sound of one hand clapping? The reason we have language is to convey concepts to one another, once you start distorting or radically changing the meaning of words or once you start diluting them you create linguistic anarchy where no ideas are able to be conveyed(the number one problem in todays world is linguistic anarchy). the word-play/semantics is exactly how the progressives/socialist/communists have managed to get away with as much as they have. Take for example the word liberal. modern liberals are anything but. when progressives became unpopular they painted themselves as liberal, then they moved the meaning of the word farther and farther down the spectrum until they ended up on the far right of the spectrum.

Anarchy----------------------------------------------------------------------Statism

a 16th century liberal would recognize a 17th, 18th and even 19th century liberal, a 19th century liberal would not recognize a 20th century liberal. If you want to win a debate 9 times out of 10 the way to win it is not through some overwhelming fact but rather through the use of language, or rather through arguing a single definition. concepts can be broadened but that is much rarer. the real question is why should it be broadened. and why should the many be forced to change their lexicon for the sake of a very few. and why is it so important that we call it marriage? for me what gives the game away is that they want to call it not just marriage but gay marriage, for me that is on par with black rights, Hispanic rights, etc. There is a difference between a language growing and perverting a language. up until a few years ago i refused to read any book written after 1900. can you seriously read something written from 50 years ago and tell me the language is growing? if anything it is shrinking, and it is doing so because of the anti-concepts. subsume several things under one name and you shrink the language. George Orwell call your office.

*note for further reading on language read "words that work".

I believe your definition of marriage is too broad. What I have done my my definition of marriage is to synthesize the meaning of marriage from all cultures which I know about (which is a great deal due to my interest in religion). The vast majority of cultures including cultures which tend to be less theistic either discourage or prohibit divorce. they view marriage as a life long commitment. It also includes the commitment to have children(or to attempt it).

I wish to focus on some things you said though

"for me now, the core concept of *marriage* is: two adults who choose one another in love. That's all."

So the term boyfriend/girlfriend does not adequately describe this? there is no special aspect to marriage. husband/wife=boyfriend/girlfriend?

"Everything else - sex included,btw, Ted - is secondary."

Body mind diachotomy

"Instead of an anti-concept, this simply becomes an expanded concept. Rights in law should follow suit." another old saying, his mind was so open his brain fell out.

but most importantly

"Or, a homosexual couple who feel they have the right to a church wedding,"

So because a homosexual couple FEEL they have a Right to a wedding in a church, Catholics should be forced at the point of a gun to recognize gay marriage and be forced to hold them in their churches?

Marriage is the fullest expression of heterosexual love, it is the commitment not just to live together, not just to love one another and share eachothers property, but most importantly it is the commitment that two people love eachother so much that they desire to HAVE and raise children together. while homosexuals can adopt they cannot HAVE children which is part of the process. it is saying "not only do I love you but I love you so much that I want to carry on my genetic line with you".

homosexual relations and heterosexual relations are apples and oranges they are no the same thus you cannot subsume them under one concept. Fundamentally this is what makes them difference. If every homosexual couple disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow human life would go on. If every heterosexual couple disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow there would be no more humans in 110 years.

Hi OL,

I am a long time lurker here first time posting.

I'd like to post up what I've come to understand about myself and my father and hopefully get some feedback on areas where I can live more consciously or take some form of responsible action to alleviate some of the negative effects my past with my father is having on me.

I grew up with immigrant parents and beatings were a common thing. Getting smacked upside the head at the table, or being spanked in public places was not outside the boundaries of what either of my parents would do, however as a young kid I'm pretty certain I understood their reasoning and, although violent, my parents were or less just. While I was young I probably got some beats I didn't deserve but I was too young to realize, the problem began when I began to develop a sense of right from wrong. Having come from a communist country my parents no doubt had a very ingrained philosophy of subservience and when I showed the gall to go against their views in action and in philosophy that's when I began to see a side of my dad that I think still haunts me to this day. When I would try to stand up for myself and what I thought should be rights of my own - like doing my homework during the week instead of all on Monday when it was due friday - my dad would enter a rage I hadn't seen before basically going mental. Although he showed a lot of restraint during these episodes (i.e. hitting softer than usual) he also showed a lot more ferocity and would sometimes shake the crap out of me as a means of stopping himself from hitting me. The fact that I could see how much anger he was trying to keep inside and not let out made those soft hits and shakes that much more terrifying.

I saw this post when I first came to this site and have avoided posting here for personal reasons however due to another thread I will post here then I plan to expand what I say here into a general advice parenting thread(Something suggested to me by a friends brother).

When I was younger I did not know my father for which I later became greatful. Instead it was my younger brother who beat me(18 months younger). To briefly describe how physically fit he was when we were younger I saw a picture a few months ago from when he was 4 and he had a six pack. He had ADHD and went into fits of rage easily. I was thirteen the first time I ever struck him and he beat me pretty bad some times (cracked some ribs). The worst part was that I was a complete and utter god fearing self immolating altruist. He had ADHD which was not his fault, he had a short fuse and hot temper which was not his fault. I was careless with my words or actions and sent him off. While the actors are different my brother your dad the underlying problem is exactly the same. Your dads particular philosophy or his reasons for doing what he did/does is unimportant except in so far as your ability to understand the why empowers you prevent being the victim in the future. With that said I would say that being in a country where his every thought was controlled his every action dictated probably lead to a control issue. I say this as a warning. There are two possible reactions to this kind of treatment your father chose one (to become the controller) the other choice is to become the victim (the controlled). I had the unfortunate experience of doing both, trust me when I say neither work out in the end.

There is one thing you posted above however that I really want to focus on: "Although he showed a lot of restraint during these episodes (i.e. hitting softer than usual) he also showed a lot more ferocity and would sometimes shake the crap out of me as a means of stopping himself from hitting me." What I see here is an attempt to minimize your fathers actions. This may or may not have been your conscious intent however I pay special attention to peoples sentence structures and the words they choose. What I see here is someone who wants to love their father, who feels an obligation toward him. It is something which is very difficult to overcome especially when you know that they wanted the best for you and though that their actions were going to help you. I would ask if you have ever told your father exactly how he made you feel.

Im turning 20 soon and all the beatings have stopped for a long time. The rage fits still occur but he's enfeebled now so I try to sooth them by agreeing with him more for his sake than my own, however I feel like the past has had some lingering effects.

The very fact that you think the past has had a lingering effect means that it has. "An emotion as such tells you nothing about reality, beyond the fact that something makes you feel something. Without a ruthlessly honest commitment to introspection—to the conceptual identification of your inner states—you will not discover what you feel, what arouses the feeling, and whether your feeling is an appropriate response to the facts of reality, or a mistaken response, or a vicious illusion produced by years of self-deception . . . .

In the field of introspection, the two guiding questions are: “What do I feel?” and “Why do I feel it?”

Philosophy: Who Needs It “Philosophical Detection,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 17."

You need to examine your emotion and determine if they are a rational response to reality or if they are phobic in their intensity and origin. If your father was wrong for treating you the way he did, if he is wrong for doing what he does than it is a crime to placate him.

Again referring to my brother. I will never forget the first time I hit him. I was 13 years old and had reached a breaking point in my life. Nothing I did was good enough, I sacrificed myself I did everything required by duty. I never asked for presents at Christmas because I knew how hard my mom worked to buy presents and pay the bills, I never raised my voice, I never hit anyone ever. I gave up my entire self and was completely selfless, when there was not alot of food in the house I would not eat for two or three days so my brother and mother could eat, or if I ate it was very little. One day my brother hit me, I warned him not to do it again I was angry and couldn't understand why the world was so insane so irrational, why when the well was dry they kept coming back for more, why i kept getting beaten. He hit me again and I snapped, I hit him once in the face twice in the sternum then picked him up fueled by adrenaline rage over my head and was ready to throw him into a wall (he was about 20lbs heavier than I) and in the moment before I smashed him against the wall I started crying in shock and fear that of what I had just done and nearly done. Looking back now I am able to asses the situation but to this day I cannot say if I should or should not have hit him. What i do know is that I would take it back in an instant if I could, not because what I did was wrong but because it was wrong to allow someone else to determine my emotions and actions. I reacted not acted.

I noticed about a month ago that my phobic fear of violence may be connected to my dad. I use to be bullied in school, however the bullying began AFTER we moved out of a community housing area and into a nice suburban home, right around when I started talking back and asserting my views. I noticed from being confronted with a number of violent situations coincidentally in the same week, that every time I am faced with this kind of situation regardless of the size of the aggressor it's always the same feeling of helplessness that I felt in the presence of my dad or a bully. ( I should mention, I do martial arts, and often wrestle and spar with my friends and get injured in the process, adding more irrationality to the fear of smaller aggressors - also fear is a bad word for it, it feels more like a total shut down, all thinking stops in my mind, and in my body I feel completely weak. )

As I said above I know exactly what you mean. I remember a turning point in my life (after my Nietzschien phase) i was about 16, I absolutely hated bullies. I would never stick up for myself (reminance of altruism) but if i saw someone else being bullied I would get violently angry. two boys were beating up on a much smaller kid after school, I took no prisoners, I didn't hold back. I do not attribute my beating them to any special talent on my part only to my increased pain tolerance from the beatings I received at the hands of my brother. What is important though is what I felt during and after. for the first time in my life when dealing with bullies I did not feel anger, contempt, or rage. I was at peace the entire time, emotionally the task was the same as carrying out an unpleasant piece of trash. You don't hate smelly trash, you don't rage at it, you pick it up and carry it outside to the dumpster and get rid of the smell. I was in the Right, I did not need to assert my rightness through force though that is the form it took. after that day I became more self aware and self concerned. I stopped reacting to people, I controlled my emotions. I directed them they did not direct me. What was Right was Right and that is what I stood for against anyone who said otherwise.

This is what you need to do. Question everything absolutely everything find what is right and stick with it, if you defend what is good and right and true you will find a strength you didnt know you had.

And finally, the real reason for writing this post. I got panic attacks for the first time in my life 6 months ago. After finding out about NB and Rand from a friend I managed to take some actions to increase my self-esteem and enjoyed the benefits of increased consciousness and a complete subsiding of the panic attacks. Since then I've had the feeling come close to coming over me twice, the first time was when I felt love for a person for the first time, and the second happened tonight on my way home. I tried to find something unique to tonight's situation and the only thing that comes to mind is that my mom has left the country today.

I want to warn you to be careful not to become a zealot. Randroidism is bad. The important thing is to internalize the principles of Rand. Many people move too fast and absorb the concretes of Rand without understanding its the concepts and principles which are important. Always ask questions and always use logic. I would actually say begin there, there are some good intro to logic books you should pick up.

I think on some sub-conscious level I still fear my father. I know logically today that if he tried to use violence against me it couldn't hurt me but I think that part of me isn't aware of that yet.

I would question your assertion that violence would not hurt you. I have personally learned that psychological trauma is much worse than physical. even if he did not hurt you at all physically could you assert that you would not be seriously damaged psychologically?

With my mom gone for a while I'm thinking of sitting my dad down one of these days and talking this stuff through with him. He's incredibly close-minded and fear-driven however I think just talking at him in some of these situations may help me. I'm not afraid to hurt his feelings because I feel like whatever he did to me as a kid was just a manifestation of what his dad did to him. I feel like in some part of himself he feels the pain of not being able to have a benevolent relationship with his son. Has anyone here gone through something similar? Have any of you dealt with the irrational fear of parents? Do you think that me telling him that I no longer fear him, and telling him his violence can't hurt me anymore will have the desired effect on my internal world or do you think this is something I have to deal with internally some how?

I did not know my father until I was 12 in fact I though I was conceived the same way as Jesus until I was 10 (i did not think i was Jesus). My father was a violent and angry man, my mom left him because he drank and used drugs. the man actually had so much contempt for me he put LSD in my food one night. He only beat me once. my brother and I had just had a verbal fight over something i dont remember what. He pulled down my brothers pants and hit him with a belt three times, my brother cried and he stopped. I had a much higher pain tolerance so i didnt cry, on the third strike he told me he would stop when I cried. I did not cry, I hated him and would not give him that satisfaction. He stopped when his arm got soar. When he was done I went into the living room and sat down on the couch next time him and watched TV he told me I was grounded from the TV so i got up jumped the fence walked up the bock to the end fell forward on my knees and burst out sobbing in pain. The last time I saw him I told him if I ever saw him again I would kill him (I was 13), he believed me. I have talked to many headshrinkers about this only one of whom understood the moral. confronting your father is not the best idea in the world, however it is clear you need to get this off your chest. I would suggest that you write it out do it as many times and in as many drafts as it takes. once you think you have said what you want to say and how you want to say it put it some where and leave it for three days to a week then come back to it and reread it. if you still think it says what you want then sit down with him and read it to him if you can if not then give it to him.

I apologize if it sounds like I'm coming here looking for therapy, but I couldn't help but post this here. There are many brilliant people on this forum and a large concentration of people who will understand this from the conceptual psychological framework that has helped me so much in the past half a year.

Blessings of Prometheus upon you and may you find peace.

"Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union."

Really? According to whom?

I did the exact opposite, last June. Rev. Allison Farnum, in a garden, no license, under the eyes of the Universe.

This type of bone-ass, dry rhetoric is about as far away from it as it gets. "The preferred form of union." Get the sheets, start cutting the holes.

Good luck with that.

I so want to say "fuck you" but I will not. How about "says fucking who?"

rde

I changed my mind: Fuck you, and state your premises.

When all else fails do not address the topic at hand instead fall back on personalizing the attack.

I do not care how the service is held. A service does not make a marriage or a civil union. The question I would ask you personally is WHY is it so important to call it a marriage? does the world come to an end if you call it something else? why redefine an entire institution for the sake of a minority?

as to the get the sheets start cutting the wholes comment... I love when you disagree with someone on anything their immediate response is to slander you with comments like "Nazi" and "Fascist" and "KKK".

Well Rich you don't know the slightest thing about me, the old saying goes "assuming make an ass out of you and me" well it doesn't it just makes an ass out of you.

people who want school vouchers hate children.

Chris Christi making teachers pay for some of their health care is the greatest assault on education in modern times.

Mathew Shepard was killed because he was gay and NOT because of a drug deal.

People who oppose Obama do not do so because he is a socialist/communist but because he is black and they are all hood wearing KKK members.

Singer is so full of holes he amounts to one big hole.

Animals have preferences. Criminals have preferences. We don't speak of their rights as such. We don't weight the murderer's wishes with his victim's.

Politically, all human persons are granted rights by default. We don't require the victim to prove he possesses rights. Fetuses simply aren't persons, yet. Other living humans are considered persons with rights until the opposite is found through due process.

I am not arguing wishes nor am I arguing peter singer (though he does provide some of the foundation) as you said he has flaws in his theory. What I am saying is that personhood does not begin until quickening which I am saying begins with self awareness not at 15 weeks. Personhood denotes identity of which a one month old does not have. imposition of identity from a third party does not make identity. There is no Joe, Charlie, or Sue until Joe, Charlie, or Sue has identity which is not possible until self awareness.

There is it seems to me a fundamental flaw with federal appointed judges who server for life being the sole arbiters of the constitution. Its much like appointing the mafia nephew of the godfather to protect you from the godfather and his thugs. The Founding Fathers never envisioned the supreme court as the final arbiter. The balance was always suppose to be from the conflict between the national government and the state. that is why the 17th amendment was such a bad idea.

"Abortion, euthanasia and infanticide

Consistent with his general ethical theory, Singer holds that the right to life is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to hold preferences, which in turn is intrinsically tied to a being's capacity to feel pain and pleasure. In his view, the central argument against abortion is equivalent to the following logical syllogism:

First premise: It is wrong to take

innocent

human life.

Second premise: From conception onwards, the embryo or fetus is innocent, human and alive.

Conclusion: It is wrong to take the life of the embryo or fetus.

[15]

In his book Rethinking Life and Death, as well as in Practical Ethics, Singer asserts that, if we take the premises at face value, the argument is deductively valid. Singer comments that those who do not generally think abortion is wrong attack the second premise, suggesting that the fetus becomes a "human" or "alive" at some point after conception; however, Singer argues that human development is a gradual process, that it is nearly impossible to mark a particular moment in time as the moment at which human life begins.

Singer's argument for abortion differs from many other proponents of abortion; rather than attacking the second premise of the anti-abortion argument, Singer attacks the first premise, denying that it is wrong to take innocent human life:

[The argument that a fetus is not alive] is a resort to a convenient fiction that turns an evidently living being into one that legally is not alive. Instead of accepting such fictions, we should recognize[sic] that the fact that a being is human, and alive, does not in itself tell us whether it is wrong to take that being's life.

[16]

Singer states that arguments for or against abortion should be based on utilitarian calculation which weighs the preferences of a mother against the preferences of the fetus. In his view a preference is anything sought to be obtained or avoided; all forms of benefit or harm caused to a being correspond directly with the satisfaction or frustration of one or more of its preferences. Since a capacity to experience the sensations of suffering or satisfaction is a prerequisite to having any preferences at all, and a fetus, at least up to around eighteen weeks, says Singer, has no capacity to suffer or feel satisfaction, it is not possible for such a fetus to hold any preferences at all. In a utilitarian calculation, there is nothing to weigh against a mother's preferences to have an abortion; therefore, abortion is morally permissible.

Similar to his argument for abortion, Singer argues that newborns similarly lack the essential characteristics of personhood—"rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness"^[17]—and therefore "killing a newborn baby is never equivalent to killing a person, that is, a being who wants to go on living."^[18]

Singer classifies euthanasia as voluntary, involuntary, or non-voluntary. Voluntary euthanasia is that with the consent of the subject.

Singer's book Rethinking Life and Death: The Collapse of Our Traditional Ethics offers further examination of the ethical dilemmas concerning the advances of medicine. He covers the value of human life and quality of life ethics in addition to abortion and other controversial ethical questions.

Singer has experienced the complexities of some of these questions in his own life. His mother had Alzheimer's disease. He said, "I think this has made me see how the issues of someone with these kinds of problems are really very difficult".^[19] In an interview with Ronald Bailey, published in December 2000, he explained that his sister shares the responsibility of making decisions about his mother. He did say that, if he were solely responsible, his mother might not continue to live.^[20]"

The personhood argument is made by Singer.

This is the position which with modification I am now putting forth seriously(I am not arguing this out of spite or out of satire). If Ted or others want to insist on personhood than I will oblige them, I will concede to the personhood argument but I insist that we carry it to its full and logical conclusion.

my niece came to live with me for three months this summer she is too much of a hand full for her mother. I let her do anything she wanted to do. However over her room I put a plaque which said "And God Said... Take what you want... and Pay for it."

Knowing she could do whatever she wanted to do she asked me "What does that mean." I told her the truth "I cant stop you from doing anything your either going to do it or not. My job is to make those bad things you would do cost so much that you don't do them."

My niece two weeks later was hanging with a boy who she was known to get stoned with, I texted her and asked her where she was she said "With bobby. the new bobby not the old bobby." well I didnt even know there were two bobby's let alone one her parents didn't want her hanging out with. When I asked her "What is bobby's last name" she told me when she got home "I told him that he needed to bring me home because you knew I was with him and you probably knew everything about him including what color his socks and underwear is." she said he laughed then she said "its not funny he has probably read all your email, your myspace messages, and your texts." I did not bother to tell her that she pretty much gave me the credit of the CIA which is more than I deserve. What she did know however and what she got right was that I would find out who she was with and she would not like the consequences. I gave her a pretty hefty punishment and then asked her if it was worth it, she was honest and said yes. my response "Alright as long as it was worth it." My job is not to add to the punishment and punish her for honesty but next time the punishment will be worse.

The moral of the story "And God Said..."

"Contractual relationships", "civil unions", great - but that's not the issue.

Where you go badly wrong is "Marriage...implies the having and raising of children...which makes Marriage something more than... a one night stand."

Huh? Children make the marriage? Are they the 'natural outcome' and purpose of marriage?

Do you mean children 'sanctify' the marriage?

Wow.

Children do not make a marriage. What makes a marriage is the possibility of children. It is a key point of the purpose of marriage. Marriage is a perminant contractual agreement. It is the pledge to remain together for the rest of ones life(again this is an aspect.). the point which I am making is that the fact that two homosexuals cannot conceive a child naturally or otherwise precludes them from marriage. Further if it is a matter of simple equal legal recognition WHY insist on calling it marriage. There are very few people who are against civil unions, they are viewed by most people I know as valid and almost exactly the same. The fact is that relationships between homosexuals and heterosexuals are not the same there is a fundamental difference. again WHY is it so important to call it a marriage.

My problem with the Anti-Concept "gay marriage" is that it IS an anti-concept. Marriage has always in all of recorded history been the union of a man and woman, it has possessed a specific definition. Definitions do change over time and concepts change as well however when concepts change they narrow not broaden in an attempt to make something more clear. When definitions change radically it perverts the language (see Gay, Queer, etc.)

Further from an objectivist view point Civil Unions are preferable due to the religious connotation. While marriage is not necessarily a religious institution it certainly is most often associated with religion. For this reason Civil Unions which are viewed more secualarly should be the preferred from of union.

Both Martin and Barbra miss the point which is being made. You are examining only the surface of the subject. What makes "Gay Marriage" an "Anti-concept" is its deliberate attempt to distort and deteriorate the language and concept of Marriage. Why insist on it being called "gay marriage" when "Civil Union" grants the exact same legally.

I am for degrees of contractual relationships. For example Civil Unions as a simple common bonding of material assets.

Marriage however is a specific concept which implies the HAVING and raising of children, even as diluted as the language has become that is still the common thread in all regions of the world which makes Marriage something more than a casual relationship or a one night stand.

Especially as Objectivists Civil Unions are preferable regardless of if the union is hetero or homosexual.

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Once it is granted that a fetus is not a person, it follows readily that a newborn human infant is not a person either. It does not have enough brain mass to be a person. What a newborn infant is - is the property of the woman that gave birth to it.

Ba'al Chatzaf

That's an arbitrary and scientifically naive statement. There have been adults with the brain mass of newborns. Why do you say such things?

Ba'al

By the gods and what they stand for what they hell is wrong with you. Your statement also assumes that children are the property of their parents. children are not property.

As to Ted.

I have got my answer from you and I respect you sticking to your guns, I always do as I say however. Quickening does not occur until the agent becomes self aware. Because electrical impulses move a muscle does not mean quickening, putting a 9v battery to a frogs leg does not make it alive even if it twitches. It is only rational consciousness which qualifies as personhood and the extent to which an animal possesses a rational consciousness is the level of its personhood. A one month old is not a rational being, because it has not reached the state of awareness there is no reason why we should hold that it is a person as "person" means a distinct identifiable identity of which the one month old has not yet developed.

the professor Is not jim something its Peter Singer. # Should the Baby Live? The Problem of Handicapped Infants (co-author with Helga Kuhse), Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1985; Oxford University Press, New York, 1986; Gregg Revivals, Aldershot, Hampshire, 1994. ISBN 0192177451

There is something more relevant to consider than the number of men in Galts Gulch. What is left out of your consideration is the cascade effect. Think of the hundreds of men that are unable to build and compete in the automotive industry due to the oppressive taxes and regulations. To use an actual example from the book think of the Phoenix Darango line. The rules which were set in place discouraged new competitors from entering the field, the railroad industry was burdened with inefficient rules. People are appointed to positions not because they are able to do the job but because of who they knew (If you say this would never really happen or is absurd look at soviet russia). When something goes wrong they pawn it off on someone who actually knows what they are doing because they know what they are doing. in a situation like that you do not want to stick out and get raises and promotions because you dont want to get stuck with the blame, thus only the incompetent rise to the tops. There are many real world businesses which are elegant examples of this.

The key to note is this. Imagine that you have a football team, the second string only get better by practice and playing so you load the field with first stringers but you put a few second string so they get play time and real world practice. however imagine playing in a league like the NFL. Everyone in the NFL quits and so they suddenly promote a bunch of college kids, eventually those kids would quit. Why? Because given more time they would play at the level that the fans expect them to play at but they are suddenly pressed into the spotlight before their time, the pressure is immense for them to be the next this or that former player.

One could very well see Atlas Shrugged become real just because of who goes on strike. by taking out the first string of American talent, you get the frozen trains.

I agree it is problematic. I hold that Terri Schiavo was murdered.

From what I know of the Schiavo case you are correct. I will try to find the guys name but its jim something or other if i can remember correctly argues that 'post natal' abortions are ethical and moral on the grounds that the child is not self aware. the child he argues is not a person therefore. According to what has been said thus far in the debate if we conclude that personhood is the quantitative/initiator of rights then we must assume this ethics chair is right. While the child surely has brain functions the child is not selfaware. The child being born tabula rasa must acquire a certain amount of data, and sort and file that data, before they can become aware.

The largest problem with this debate is that abortion advocates want to use clean and sterile words. Anyone who knows about soldiers and what they do or about special ops guys knows that they use a specific vocabulary which "dehumanizes" the "target". In not so many words they are trained to think of the enemy as something less than human because of the psychological toll it takes to kill another human. Very few men are able to kill even justly without any psychological harm. I would suggest that everyone interested in this topic or not read "Words that Work".

As to specific application to this topic I want to everyone to notice the emphasis on the word "Fetus" this is a distancing word why choose fetus over unborn child, or child or baby. Children and even mothers refer to the fetus as a "baby" yet when a woman has an abortion it is a fetus. why? The word baby encompasses both a fetus and an infant, yet you will never hear an abortion advocate refer to a fetus as a baby (unless they or the person who they are referring too wants the baby). you would never hear a mother tell her child "come feel the fetus in mom's belly its kicking". nor would you hear another adult correct the mother for saying "the baby is kicking".

Every genocide in history has been justified by this separation language which redefines those being murdered as "non-human" or "not a person", which is why I am so against abortion. I have read Nazi propaganda and propaganda from around the world which does exactly that. Whites are superior to blacks because blacks are just one step above apes in fact they are apes more advanced apes but apes none the less, they can use human speech but a monkey that can speak is none the less a monkey. Just look at "black" culture violent, and animalistic.

As a Capitalist absolutely abhor racism. When I was younger I would actually debate racists on the topic but it was all useless. They knew what they knew and what they knew was that anyone who was not white, or black, or Hispanic, and in one case Native American 'is not human or a person'. When you begin to draw lines such as when abortion is acceptable and when it is not there are very serious problems, the Overton Window is very easy to move when you draw that line. I want you to consider that it is almost now a given that in cases of rape and incest abortions should be acceptable, politicians and others who are "pro-life"(notice the words) are attacked if they say in cases of rape and incest that abortion is not acceptable. Logically if they are to be consistent we know that they must hold this position yet they are demonized for it. and why are they demonized? because those who favor abortion know that once someone concedes abortion in rape and incest cases the next logical step, the next question which must be asked is "well if its okay in A and B why not in C or D".

I want to make my point as clearly as I can so I want you to consider the following statements.

1)Sarah went to the hospital today and had an abortion.

2)Sarah went to the hospital today and aborted a fetus.

3)Sarah went to the hospital today and eliminated a baby.

4)Sarah went to the hospital today and killed a baby.

5)Sarah went to the hospital today and killed a human.

Notice all five statements say exactly the same thing and all of them refer to the exact same subject.

I want to make myself clear, I want my position to be clear. I am against Abortion for the same reason that I am against infanticide. Ted if you want to use the word "Personhood" instead of human I will do so from this point forward, however if you choose to use the word "personhood" I want you to be aware that I will not change my position however I will then be forced to argue in favor of infanticide of which I will have very strong grounds to do so under the definition. "Slippery" or "Sliding concepts" are very dangerous. I await your response.

Very, very wrong.

Adam

Morality ends where a gun begins.

Well thats queer Ted.

I think from what I understand of your position is similar to mine namely that "Legalizing" "gay marriage" is initiation of force. words have specific meanings and the attempt to have "gay marriage" rather than civil unions is an attempt to corrupt the language.

When I read this post my first thought was "This is John Galt speaking."

Ted

I looked for prop 7 and couldnt find it

Alan:

Correct. Marriage essentially was, and still is, an economic device to pool resources in order to create and raise children in a civil social structure which is recognized by the state and invested with certain civil rights.

Although not the same, "gay marriage," is as contradictory conceptually as "hate crime." The absurdity of the taking of any individual's life, liberty or property as being worse because of some "intent" which a politically correct statute is attempting to punish is insane.

However, your excellent point as to the devolution of our culture and the progressive, marxist, statist roots of the actors is dead nuts on point.

My favorite example is the John Dewey quote that the purpose of progressivism, particularly compulsive public education was to separate the child from:

1) their family;

2) their religion; and

3) their country [patriotism]

which would thereby create the "common child" which could then be molded for the progressives concept of their best interests.

And look where we have arrived at today!

Adam

Adam,

I have hated communism and communists since i was in High School and have been warning people they are here. it wasnt until the election of Heir commrad leader that people started believing me. At this point I am opposed to same sex marriage because I believe that it is force. They are trying to force people to accept culturally what they do not accept.

When we are sleeping persons we are sleeping persons. Your question, are we not human, is bizarre.

The words human, individual, person, and living are all separate. At no point is a sperm, an egg, or an individual not living. All are human if they are a member of our species. An egg is an individual egg, a sperm an individual sperm, and an individual zygote, from conception to death, is an individual zygote. A person is a being with the capacity for autonomous consciousness. A person par excellence is an autonomous conceptual mind. Since consciousness is a complex, graded phenomenon, borderlines exist where things like adult apes are more persons than developing embryos. We speak of pets as having personalities. How we wish to treat non-human creatures is a moral question, if not a political one. But we can draw lines distinct enough to distinguish between mindless embryos and premies.

The abortion question requires us to draw lines. We do not extend political rights to non-humans because non-humans do not respect our rights. If we do not condone the murder of newborns, it is illogical to hold that killing late term children in the womb is acceptable due to some sort of issue of independence. A newborn baby is utterly dependent, do we hold, like the Romans, that we have the right to kill it? But before the onset of coordinated neural activity, there is no person - no autonomous mind - whose rights can be taken away. There is a human organism, but not yet a human person.

At one month, an individual human fetus has no coordinated mental system. It can be destroyed without compunction for its rights because it has not yet attained personhood. The same applies for actually brain dead adults. The question is a scientific one, and not one to be taken lightly.

From my understanding of the subject, there is no possibility of the existence of a person prior to quickening. That provides a comfortably demarcation before which no person is destroyed and after which there may a person to be destroyed by an abortion. Since the child is an innocent party, I err in its favor once the stage of quickening has been reached.

Hereis my only problem with your definition of personhood. The questions arise from this news story was the man ever brain dead to begin with? Besides that we simply do not know enough about the human brain or the development of the mind to begin with.

Further I have a problem with (and you did not address this) once we start using personhood it is a very short hop to narrowing down who qualifies as a person. If an individual only has the brain activity of an ape (ie they are outside the normal perimeters of Human brain functions) do we have the right to destroy them? why do we grant a human with the mental capacity of an animal more of a right to live than an ape? Further why don't we limit Person to include rational as part of the definition?

Another post inspired me to bring this up as I have not seen it talked about here yet.

I have a serious problem with the term "gay marriage" and the reason is the motivation behind such a term. The proponents of "gay marriage" do not simply want equal standing under the law, if they did Civil Unions would satisfy (Which from an Objective stand point should be all the Government should do anyway). When I first began the gay marriage debate several years ago I did not come down on one side or the other but examined both sides of the argument, as I did this I began to notice a trend. When I suggested Civil Unions as a compromise it would send the gay marriage proponent off the deep end, when I would point out that it would do exactly what they wanted to do legally they fought even harder. I began to ask myself why.

The answer came in the form of cracks in the proponents arguments, it wasn't any real ah'ha it was that they would not or could not explain why it was so important to call it gay marriage rather than civil union. As the cracks developed I realized that it was not a matter of equality under the law but rather an assault on culture. If you want to destroy Right's introduce Civil Rights. Marriage is a specific concept which transcends the legal system. Throughout recorded history the practice of marriage has altered only slightly, the number of husbands, the number of wives, acceptance of or exclusion of divorce. Marriage itself has always implied the possibility of reproduction, this is not to say that in order for marriage to occur there must be offspring, only that there be a possibility given modern science we now know that some couples cannot conceive naturally however there is still a possibility by other means to have children. The point which is being made is marriage implies a specific family structure. We here know the left is communist/socialist, we also know they are masters of deconstruction.

"gay marriage" is nothing more than an anti-concept which is being applied to destroy American Culture.