LOL... Virginia Governor Northam had a Train Wreck Week

[anthony]

As you say, Rand was careful with words. An "embryo", is the one technical term she mentioned, but is *not yet* a "fetus" (to which you referred that she "determined that a fetus is not human life" - and I corrected the term).

An embryo develops into a fetus in 10 weeks. That is fairly in keeping with Rand's "the essential issue concerns only the first three months". It would seem to a reasonable reader that she was not too sure about the later stages re: abortion, and left that to philosopher posterity and future scientific advances to work out.

Plainly we differ on *when* a zygote-embryo-fetus is a potential human or when a human actuality - or there are no distinctions, it is human from conception. This matters, since one must know when objective value can be given it, for private, ethical and legal concerns. At conception, you claim - fine with me although we must agree to disagree. One thing known, the mother is actually human and living. A few months into an accidental, unplanned, unwanted pregnancy should not and need not disrupt her life.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

This matters, since one must know when objective value can be given it, for private, ethical and legal concerns.

Tony,

How about individual DNA? That's pretty objective for determining when an individual human being comes into existence. A fertilized human egg has individual DNA, the same as the adult it grows into. No other being has the same.

The rest is simply playing God and trying to make man's whim the determiner of nature: Nature shall not be what it is. A shall not be A. Nature shall be what some human or other says it is--and even then, that can change. A is only A when so-and-so says so.

But I remember that Rand wrote nature to be commanded must be obeyed. When one declares a fertilized human egg is nonhuman, as Rand said an embryo is not human but mere protoplasm instead, it is a blatant misidentification and example of not obeying nature. Nothing good comes of it. 

btw - Did I say fetus? Sorry. It doesn't matter, though. I know of no place where Rand discussed the difference between fetus and embryo. To her, a human being was developed, not when it began for real. The rest is arguing over the stage according to some arbitrary opinion.

Also, I'm not sure Rand considered mentally impaired people, like those with Downs syndrome, as human. According to Barbara, Rand got creeped out every time she had to face this reality.

I know in Rand's rhetoric, she often used the term "subhuman" when discussing those she despised. So she was all too ready to call humans not human.

To me, this is imprecise language, not just an insult. It's the first stage of demonizing people: removing their humanity in language. Then it becomes easy to kill them. It's harder, morally, to justify killing an entire class of human beings. But if they're not human... Like, say, when one determines that individual human beings in the first stages of development are not human...

But giving her the benefit of the doubt, how about this? Rand wrote an article in The Ayn Rand Letter called "The Missing Link" theorizing that people with arrested cognitive development according to her theory of concepts were possibly a different species, a "missing link" between apes and humans.

Like I said, Rand's view of human nature was flawed. She got a lot right, but not that.

btw - Have you noticed that this thread is about politics (VA and Alabama so far), yet the discussion has gone back to "Rand is right/Rand is wrong"? Man, am I tired of this subtext...  Certain topics in O-Land always boil down to that in the end, then they drag on and on and on forever.

Shall we discuss Dagny shooting the guard dead in cold blood?  How about Roark raping Dominique?  Or Rand saying architecture was not art until it was?  Or her affair with NB?  Or the fucking Remington Rand typewriter?  I've got a million of 'em.  

Michael

[Jonathan]

On 5/15/2019 at 1:47 PM, anthony said:

So when does an actual become "actual"?

(I think) viability is the new birth.

So, define "viability." How is an individual's viability determined, and why? If an entity possesses indivual rights, is it reasonable for us to kill it if it is inhabiting another's being or property against the will of the owner, though not by its own choosing? If you were to actually apply objectivity, logic and reason to the issue, rather than trying to prop up Rand's half-baked emotings, what would you come up with?

J

[anthony]

22 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, define "viability." How is an individual's viability determined, and why? If an entity possesses indivual rights, is it reasonable for us to kill it if it is inhabiting another's being or property against the will of the owner, though not by its own choosing? If you were to actually apply objectivity, logic and reason to the issue, rather than trying to prop up Rand's half-baked emotings, what would you come up with?

J

Read Roger Bissell's argument, all of which, and my added viability, goes well out of the range of what Rand wrote, so has nothing to do with her "emotings". One needs to work this out for oneself in accordance with reality and the scope of (objectivist) metaphysics, ethics and rights. She properly defended the mother's individual right to life (to chosen freedom of action). And then, explicitly, *only* up to three months of pregnancy, leaving the debate open about the later, post-embyronic stage. Viability is nothing new. One can briefly define it as a fetus reaching the stage of being able to continue life ex utero (with a special, concentrated care, obviously, which is no more than any normally birthed infant needs). The telling - objective - indicator, would be as soon as the fetus has detectable activity of its developed brain and nervous system, therefore the sensory, perceptual level of a human consciousness.

The individual right of the mother should not be limitless. And claiming 'property' rights for the fetus is a silly argument. At that point of growth, the fetus is undeniably biologically and consciously a human being, and has the "right to life" identical to a new-born child. With the usual caveats of mother's health and risk of life, an abortion should be as illegal as murder after there, it follows, and the doctors liable for heavy penalties.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

32 minutes ago, anthony said:

The telling - objective - indicator, would be as soon as the fetus has detectable activity of its developed brain and nervous system, therefore the sensory, perceptual level of a human consciousness.

Tony,

Why is that, instead of DNA, "the telling objective indicator" in your view?

Is DNA, in your argument, something to be ignored as a defining characteristic of a human being?

Is the reasoning process: ignore it and it will go away?

 

btw - Let's use an old Randian form of argument on your statement, "as soon as the fetus has detectable activity of its developed brain and nervous system."

Since we are talking about literal human life and death, it's reasonable to ask: Detectable by whom? 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

48 minutes ago, anthony said:

The individual right of the mother should not be limitless.

Tony,

This is where I disagree. And I would go further. I believe the sovereignty of a woman over her own body should be limitless, including sovereignty over the human life within it.

And I say that while loathing abortion...

This is a legal issue instead of a biological one. It's about defining the powers and rights of the government. That always gets disguised as defining the rights of the woman and her unborn.

Michael

[anthony]

 

 

 

 

3

On 5/16/2019 at 5:29 AM, Peter said:

 

 

Also it is important to remember that even after birth a child is not granted the exercise of all its rights. A child needs to be taken care of. A child by its nature cannot be responsible enough to drive a car, or to do a myriad of things without adult supervision. That does not mean that it does not have all the rights of an adult, it simply means that a parent or guardian exercises its rights FOR the child.  

 

Yet . . . what does this mean morally? The nature of an unthinking human embryo endows it with more importance than any other life form and if it is to be aborted at any time, I think the abortion should be given the utmost consideration. (Growing up in a military family we always referred to such an absolute as “due consideration,” and that is not a frivolous term.) From the instant after fertilization, a human embryo should be given more consideration than inanimate matter and more consideration than all other creatures in the vast, animal kingdom. Peter

Peter, The "utmost consideration" we need give to this tricky topic has to have an ethical base, and I believe this is answered by: "Man's life as the standard of value".

(btw, not "more importance" - for a fetus - but AS important as all human life, I'd argue. Earlier in pregnancy, with a "human embryo", this should never be a light decision for aware, self-respecting, women - but it would be moral to undergo, objectively. The casualness with which many women treat an abortion procedure is unappealing, to say the least). 

Bearing in mind that the Objectivist gauge of morality, man's life, does "not* relate to the infant's "life". It relates to what is "proper to man" and his life, in entirety. From that, it would be an - improper- act for mother, father or doctor to decide to dispose of a formed, conscious, last trimester fetus. The objective law here must override the mother's wishes. 

 

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

This is where I disagree. And I would go further. I believe the sovereignty of a woman over her own body should be limitless, including sovereignty over the human life within it.

And I say that while loathing abortion...

This is a legal issue instead of a biological one. It's about defining the powers and rights of the government. That always gets disguised as defining the rights of the woman and her unborn.

Michael

Michael, Not limitless if one defines an abortion beyond the "bright line" to be infanticide. This is what ("positive") individual rights reduces to and entails, the freedom of action ... for all.

(assuming that, here should be applied the normal "non-initiation of force" principle).

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, anthony said:

... the freedom of action...

Tony,

This is exactly why I grant sovereignty to the woman over her body. The unborn cannot act outside the womb. Even the concept of freedom of action for the unborn is silly except for, maybe, freedom to grow as an artificial construct (which I do not promote since it is deducing reality artificially from a principle). 

As to defining infanticide, that would not matter in my formulation since the government would have no authority inside a woman's womb. None.

When I say sovereignty, I mean it.

Michael

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Why is that, instead of DNA, "the telling objective indicator" in your view?

Is DNA, in your argument, something to be ignored as a defining characteristic of a human being?

Is the reasoning process: ignore it and it will go away?

 

btw - Let's use an old Randian form of argument on your statement, "as soon as the fetus has detectable activity of its developed brain and nervous system."

Since we are talking about literal human life and death, it's reasonable to ask: Detectable by whom? 

Michael

DNA is of little help that I can see. From any cells of the body, even from a human hair, DNA testing can identify it to be - organic, animal, mammal - human. The crucial debate, to my mind, is what and when is human LIFE. Advances in biology and the specialist branch of fetology give further insight for philosophers to consider. Science informs philosophy also.

"Detectable" by fetal EEG used by fetologists, which is becoming an increasingly sophisticated test for brain activity. Short of this, the length of period after conception is a quite predictably consistent guide. Although I'm no expert. 

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

This is exactly why I grant sovereignty to the woman over her body. The unborn cannot act outside the womb. Even the concept of freedom of action for the unborn is silly except for, maybe, freedom to grow as an artificial construct (which I do not promote since it is deducing reality artificially from a principle). 

As to defining infanticide, that would not matter in my formulation since the government would have no authority inside a woman's womb. None.

When I say sovereignty, I mean it.

Michael

Michael, "act" here doesn't mean making choices and taking autonomous, physical action. Rather, as individual rights and the freedom to action are ultimately based on: The "freedom to life". (once it has been established when human life begins).

Otherwise, to be trivial, there would not be an existing law against infanticide - this is already in force, say, one minute after a baby's birth. An abortion one minute earlier than birth is acceptable? This would be arbitrary and illogical. The newborn can no more and no less act independently as "rational animal" than can a viable fetus inside or outside the womb. 

Life:

"Only a living entity can have goals or can originate them. And it is only a living organism that has the capacity for self-generated, goal-directed action. On the physical level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex—from the nutritive function in the single cell of an amoeba to the blood circulation in the body of a man—are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism’s life.

An organism’s life depends on two factors: the material or fuel which it needs from the outside, from its physical background, and the action of its own body, the action of using that fuel properly. What standard determines what is proper in this context? The standard is the organism’s life, or: that which is required for the organism’s survival." (The Objectivist Ethics)

She wrote further:

"When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic function of an organism, the term "goal-directed" is not to be taken to mean "purposive" (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness)..."

---

What I see many Leftist-secularists in particular wish for, is the self-contradiction - freedom without responsibility, in fact, freedom *from* responsibility -- I can do what I choose, when I choose  - because - I feel like it. They pay little attention or consideration to the identity (nor objective value) of - well - most things, least of all, abortion. Such is subjective 'value'. On the other side, is the religious/conservatives' intrinsic value. Personally, I have some accord and respect for that quality of self-responsibility in their advocacy for all human life - despite "the Soul" being their standard of value. (as wrong, irrational and annoying as it can be for others). In distinction from them, the 'objective value' for life and in anything else, is a radical departure from both other theories of value, as we know.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

DNA testing can identify it to be - organic, animal, mammal - human.

You left out something fundamental.

Individual human.

DNA identifies the individual human being. Nothing else on earth does that with such precision.

Come on.

Individuals matter in O-Land unless they don't?

 

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Although I'm no expert. 

Just executioner?

   

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 minutes ago, anthony said:

... once it has been established when human life begins...

Tony,

Sorry.

For those who want to do the establishing, you're too late.

Nature already took care of that part.

Nowadays some humans wish to replace nature with words, but that's just semantics to justify killing and let the killer feel better. I prefer my killing to be called killing.

Don't forget that death is the stake here. Not the death of those who want to do the establishing, either. The death of pesky details like other human beings who are just starting to live.

 

Michael

[anthony]

Michael,

Modern man can now "take care of" a lot of things, circumventing nature. You know, "Nature, to be commanded..."

This newish knowledge about fetal brain activity makes for an adjustment in thinking and laws.

Your premise, not mine,  appears to be, that this value, life, starts at conception. If followed through, the mother's value in her own life would have to come second to (what is objectively) a lesser value -- i.e. the self-sacrifice of a fully-fledged individual to her embryo.

"Actual" person with thoughts, ambitions, and emotions - to "a potential". And the more rational and responsible she is, the greater the load on her now and (she knows) later on: to have the child adopted? to put her ambitions and living on hold for many years of bringing up her unplanned child? Perhaps - unaided by a man, too. Or will she have to accept state welfare? What a choice. One's compassion should go to her.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, anthony said:

Your premise, not mine,  appears to be, that this value, life, starts at conception.

Tony,

Bingo.

I've only been saying this since the start.

Of course life starts at conception. It doesn't start when some people wish it did. It starts when the individual DNA is created and the new organism with that DNA starts growing.

That's the way biology works. In fact, it works that way for all species.

17 minutes ago, anthony said:

If followed through, the mother's value in her own life would have to come second to (what is objectively) a lesser value -- i.e. the self-sacrifice of a fully-fledged individual to her embryo.

What part of a woman having absolute sovereignty over her body, including the human life within it, did you not grok?

Are you even tracking what I have been saying? To make a post like your last, it seems like you haven't been.

Michael

[anthony]

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Bingo.

I've only been saying this since the start.

Of course life starts at conception. It doesn't start when some people wish it did. It starts when the individual DNA is created and the organism starts growing.

That's the way biology works. And it works that way for all species.

What part of a woman having absolute sovereignty over her body, including the human life within it, did you miss?

Are you even tracking what I have been saying? To make a post like your last, it seems like you haven't.

Michael

Michael, On the one hand, you argue against any abortion at all, on the other you argue the woman has "sovereignty", at all costs. So what is normatively and morally right? What would curtail one's individual rights?

Any interference with others' rights to life, their individual rights. 

The fetus at that stage (described) is autonomous, fully developed, only dependent on the sustenance and shelter the mother's body -automatically - still provides. The nourishment can easily be provided today outside the womb, not essentially requiring the mother's body to survive. Therefore, it is an independent, pre-conceptual, and (physically) "goal-directed" entity -- and is now, human life, as we know it, with its own rights. The exact moment of parturition doesn't change a single thing about the child, except people's traditional perceptions about "life starting at birth". As parents of premature birth babies know, all that's missing is the 'natural' labor. Taking that life after that autonomously viable stage should be considered murder. 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Michael, On the one hand, you argue against any abortion at all, on the other you argue the woman has "sovereignty", at all costs.

Tony,

You still haven't tracked my words correctly.

I said I loathed abortion, not that I wanted the government to prohibit it.

I don't want the government involved at all until the living human being inside the mother leaves the mother's domain (her body) and comes into being in the domain the government rules over--the geographical country.

Here's an example of my thinking that sort of deals with something you said. See if you can understand what I am saying.

If a fetus is inside a woman's body, the woman has sovereignty over it, including the power to kill it. That's what sovereignty means.

If the fetus--at the same stage of development--is removed from her womb and put on life support in a hospital, nobody has a right to kill it. Killing it would be murder under the government. Why? Because of sovereignty of domain. The government does not rule over the inside of the woman's body. She does. But the government does rule over the territory where the hospital is and is the authority that protects individual rights within that domain.

Think of a woman's body in my formulation like an Indian territory in the US. 

I also said that people who pretend humans are not human are only fooling themselves and will never convince someone who sees reality for what it is. And I include Ayn Rand in this particular case. She got it wrong. Humans are human. A is A.

Life cycles start with conception and end with death. Birth is an individual life form changing domains (from inside a host to the outside world) as it grows. Birth is not a transmutation from one species to another, neither is it a transmutation from dead to alive. It is the same individual all the way through, starting all the way back to conception. That's biology 101.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

btw - Here is why I worry about you in South Africa.

 

Michael

[Jonathan]

8 hours ago, anthony said:

Read Roger Bissell's argument, all of which, and my added viability, goes well out of the range of what Rand wrote, so has nothing to do with her "emotings". One needs to work this out for oneself in accordance with reality and the scope of (objectivist) metaphysics, ethics and rights. She properly defended the mother's individual right to life (to chosen freedom of action). And then, explicitly, *only* up to three months of pregnancy, leaving the debate open about the later, post-embyronic stage. Viability is nothing new. One can briefly define it as a fetus reaching the stage of being able to continue life ex utero (with a special, concentrated care, obviously, which is no more than any normally birthed infant needs). The telling - objective - indicator, would be as soon as the fetus has detectable activity of its developed brain and nervous system, therefore the sensory, perceptual level of a human consciousness.

The individual right of the mother should not be limitless. And claiming 'property' rights for the fetus is a silly argument. At that point of growth, the fetus is undeniably biologically and consciously a human being, and has the "right to life" identical to a new-born child. With the usual caveats of mother's health and risk of life, an abortion should be as illegal as murder after there, it follows, and the doctors liable for heavy penalties.

 

You didn't answer my questions or address my points. As usual, you didn't even grasp them.

J

[anthony]

Evidently we differ on the essentials. I maintain one's individual rights to an abortion are non-negotiable until life begins - when all the irrefutable vital signs of human life are there -  after which nobody can legally claim 'a right' to an abortion that amounts to infanticide. Michael, you say life begins at conception -- but anyone has rights to abort, right up to full term. We can't move on.

On 5/17/2019 at 1:12 PM, Jonathan said:

So, define "viability." How is an individual's viability determined, and why? If an entity possesses indivual rights, is it reasonable for us to kill it if it is inhabiting another's being or property against the will of the owner, though not by its own choosing? If you were to actually apply objectivity, logic and reason to the issue, rather than trying to prop up Rand's half-baked emotings, what would you come up with?

J

All answered, if you read what I've written and thought about it. "Viability", and some facts on how it can be "determined"; no, not "reasonable" to "kill it" if it has rights, despite the "will of the owner"; and no "property" rights enter the equation. Rand makes the argument for non-sacrifice of a woman to her embryo. To repeat, this falls mostly outside her written purview. 

I've said and indicated - objective metaphysics, biology, ethics and individual rights and objective law, are all pertinent - if the premises are factually true and the life-value-judgments, valid, then with conceptual "logic" pull the factors together and see what proposition you arrive at.

No legal abortion, at any stage.

Abortion "on demand" up til full term, according to 'individual rights', superficially.

Abortion up until fetal brain (preceded by other organ growth) activity and viability, after which illegal - the fetus being identical to a new born, in kind if not in size.

So, what do you say?

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

49 minutes ago, Jonathan said:

You didn't answer my questions or address my points. As usual, you didn't even grasp them.

Jonathan,

There is a process that I think would be good for Tony to learn (if he is willing).

When commenting on an idea:

1. First summarize what the person said to make sure there is no misunderstanding about what he means.

2. Say what you agree with (in basic terms).

3. Then get to the part you disagree with.

It might even be a good idea to make Item 1 a single post and await a response before going on to Items 2 and 3.

I learned this a long time age somewhere (Feynman? I don't remember...), used it strictly for a while, then I didn't need to.

As I was developing this skill, I was surprised at how much I would get wrong, thus I would end up criticizing stuff that didn't exist. 

Maybe he will be interested. Maybe not.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

37 minutes ago, anthony said:

Michael, you say life begins at conception -- but anyone has rights to abort, right up to full term. We can't move on.

Tony,

Of course we can't since you keep getting what I say wrong.

And you keep claiming humans are not human. But they are human. You're the one who wants to kill the unborn by right, not me. I said I loathe that.

To be clear, I said the mother has sovereignty, where she has the power to abort (or not). I didn't say I like it, but then again, there are entire countries that exercise powers I don't like and despise.

But more importantly, I did not say "anyone" has the right to abort. Men, for example, do not have a right to abort. Grandparents do not have a right to abort their grandchildren. The government does not have a right to abort anything. In fact, in my version, nobody has a right to abort.

The government does not grant rights. It protects them. Anything else is the government exercising power over people. 

In that light, the mother has the power to kill the human being inside her and the government by others cannot interfere with that power. Why? Because it does not have sovereignty inside her (in my perfect government). Just like the American government does not have the power to prohibit Saudi Arabia from executing any of its citizens and vice-versa.

My version of the ideal government is much smaller and less intrusive on the individual than yours. You seem to like governments that force its citizens to comply with your idea of their lives, not their idea of their lives.

What happened to NIOF? Oh... I forgot... It's an absolute rule until it isn't.

 

btw - I believe in a strong anti-abortion education campaign (free speech and all) and would probably contribute to it if anything near what I propose ever come to pass. I trust mothers to have some innate love for their offspring and I know such a campaign would appeal to that in most cases, far more than pro-abortion campaigns do. Especially if government funding of abortions is cut. So I believe the number of abortions would be very small in the end--much smaller than now. 

I happen to believe abortion is immoral, too. Like I said, I loathe it. 

But I loathe something more. I don't believe in a government that decrees such-and-such stage is human and a different stage is not, that such-and-such class is human and a different class is not. In fact, I consider that kind of thinking dangerous and murderous. Every time that formulation has been accepted as proper to a government, massive killing happened.

Hell, just look at the massive number of abortions today. Guess what kind of dehumanizing propaganda and assignment of that propaganda to the government led to all those dead babies? 

So you may want to play God with a mother's unborn.

I don't. 

That's her business between her and her God (or conscience).

You may want to rule over pregnant mothers and force them to do as you will.

I don't.

In my thinking, the government of others should only enter after the mother is no longer the physical environment and domain of her unborn. Until such time, I believe she should hold absolute sovereignty over that domain, regardless of who likes what she does or not. It's her body, not theirs. 

Michael

[anthony]

Michael, Most helpful, but if I haven't made myself very clear, and repetitively so, and in several ways at length, then it's you guys who need the reading skills.

I heard what you said and understood the premise from the start, but I cannot, frinstance, argue much further against someone's most fundamental views of life (e.g.: begins at conception). You believe it, I believe different.

Other inconsequential questions asked of me by J, are not for his interest or information. Not when I'd been this clear throughout (as was Roger, and no attempt has been made to refute his excellent argument) - instead, they are looking to trip me up. Or find holes in Objectivism, or Rand. Who has little featured, here.

See? I've learned something from experience.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

38 minutes ago, anthony said:

... most fundamental views of life (e.g.: begins at conception). You believe it, I believe different.

Tony,

When do you believe an organism starts living if not at conception?

Is it dead until some later point that you determine?

After all, the opposite of living is dead.

 

I didn't invent life cycles. I only observe how they work. 

btw - Congratulations on correctly identifying a difference in fundamentals between us. Now we can agree and disagree, evaluate, etc. without talking past each other. At least on that fundament. We can now talk about something that exists (our respective fundaments) rather than a unicorn with a potato stuck on its horn.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

23 minutes ago, anthony said:

Or find holes in Objectivism, or Rand. Who has little featured, here.

Tony,

It always comes back to Rand right/Rand wrong with you, doesn't it? 

But I see you sneaking it in and I'm not going to let this one grow without a fight.

 

Michael