Glenn Beck in D.C.


Christopher

Recommended Posts

Dennis:

A Devil's Advocate question:

That is why rights are only applicable to the mother prior to birth (or, IMO, prior to fetal viability). So I don't think the abortion issue really turns on the question of whether the unborn fetus is human. I am certain she would have said the fetus was human at a certain stage of development.

Is your position then, that fetal rights are dependent upon viability?

Adam

Edited by Selene
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 115
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dennis,

I am very familiar with the arguments you presented. They still hold the vice of dismissal.

For instance, the argument you make about a fetus being a "potential" human is received by the mainstream person as a dismissal of the issue--at best. Many feel this is a sidestep. The logic would go something like this:

You claim that all humans have rights and a fetus is only a potential human. That means that it doesn't fall within "all humans" because it is not a real human, only a potential one. Thus a fetus doesn't have rights because it is not actually a human being. Hmmmmm... OK... (smiles benevolently, pats you on the head and moves on to religion where the fetus is considered as a real existing individual human life).

The reasoning is common sense. What could a fetus be if not human? A giraffe? I'm not talking about my thinking at this moment. I'm talking about what goes on in the head of the religious person. You will never convince an anti-abortion person that abortion is not a violation of the right to life by simply calling that stage of an individual's life a "potential human."

To be honest, looking at the issue from a biological stance, the "potential human" argument comes off as semantic game-playing, not as a true definition. It arbitrarily lops off a universal part of the human experience in order to fit human life into a definition.

I believe the best approach is to admit that fetus is an individual human life and define rights based on a standard that takes this into account.

I read somewhere that we all go through three phases of existing within a society: (1) complete dependence on others, (2) independence from others, and (2) interdependence with others. This is universal to growth within our species and pertains to all of us. In other words, this is a fact anyone can observe.

But these are not rigid categories where you step out of one and are transformed into the other from one minute to the next. Growth from one to the other happens gradually and there is overlapping. First you are in the womb with total dependence while you grow enough stuff to handle the biology of feeding (including breathing) outside the womb. Then the direct biological dependence through the umbilical cord is severed and your conscious awareness to deal with the outside world kicks in, but you are still totally dependent on the others around you to survive. As you grow, you gradually become independent of them, reaching full independence in late teens or so. Then you construct your adult life by establishing (and/or maintaining from the past) your own network of other people you live and interact with--your own personal community so to speak. This interdependence phase is rather plastic and you can change folks all the time, but you still live within a community. You can reject it altogether and become a solitary monk, but these folks are extremely rare individuals in our species.

That is human nature just as much as saying humans have a volitional conceptual consciousness.

Now back to rights. I have no problem whatsoever with defining something like the right to life as starting with the phase of independence from others (or some point where that phase starts), marked by a definable event like birth, if the argument can be made logically. (And I believe it can, but it will not look like what we use right now.) I do have a problem with defining a person who is in the phase of complete dependence on others as only a "potential" person. That's a flawed premise, using a definition that is impossible to substantiate with biology, and any religious person sees it right from the very beginning.

And even if it were not a flawed premise, the traditional Objectivist argument has basically boiled down to "You are wrong and I am right," then there are comments about enslaving the mother. Rand even throws in that anyone who dares to entertain disagreeing with her on this is evil and vicious. But her argument does not touch on the fundamental issue in the religious person's mind. It dismisses it.

You talked about the religious person's brain being "completely insulated from genuine, clear-thinking rationality." This is one case where I believe the religious person is acting rationally and trying to stay within logical consistency. But the rational case is flawed at the premise level with a semantic sleight-of-hand. The religious person sees it, too. His mental "insulation" on this issue comes more from this point than from being contaminated by faith.

Nobody will never convince a religious person that a fetus is anything but an individual human life. Actually, if we are using a biological standard, they will not convince me, either. I see a fetus as an individual human life that is growing and is in the total dependence stage.

Humans are not just rational animals. They are only rational animals at maturity and they have to grow into that. If folks want to make the case that rights pertain only to mature human beings, that is another approach. I don't believe it will be successful at convincing many people, but I do believe a sliding scale of gradually increasing rights would be.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

So since the whole human race is interconnected and interdependent, does that mean under your system that you can use my government to point a gun to my head to pay for starving African children? What about the next-door neighbor children?

I think you're raising valid points by the way, but looming behind those points I'm wondering if I see the dark cloud of totalitarianism. You are placing certain points in the field of rights that I would have placed in the field of ethics.

Regarding abortion, I think Rand's most powerful argument is that the woman was here first, and the fetus is a dependent, and thus the woman's life takes priority. This principle becomes clear even to many religious people when the woman's life becomes threatened by the pregnancy.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Regarding abortion, I think Rand's most powerful argument is that the woman was here first, and the fetus is a dependent, and thus the woman's life takes priority. This principle becomes clear even to many religious people when the woman's life becomes threatened by the pregnancy."

Shayne

Good point.

Let me posit a very realistic situation wherein both parties agree to have a child, and, in fact, sign a written contract to that fact with commitments to raise the child.

Now, let us posit that in the fifth month of pregnancy, the woman decides to have an abortion.

1) Does the man have a right to legally block that abortion based on the contractual rights?

2) How, in a free, society should this dispute be adjudicated?

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.

Let me posit a very realistic situation wherein both parties agree to have a child, and, in fact, sign a written contract to that fact with commitments to raise the child.

Now, let us posit that in the fifth month of pregnancy, the woman decides to have an abortion.

1) Does the man have a right to legally block that abortion based on the contractual rights?

2) How, in a free, society should this dispute be adjudicated?

Adam

1) No. But he has a right to recover actual damages. Which in this case would be nil.

2) This is a slave contract. Slave contracts would be enforcible only to the extent of recovering actual damages. E.g., you sign a contract to be someone's slave in exchange for $100. The judge would nullify the contract but you'd be on the hook for $100.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since the whole human race is interconnected and interdependent...

Shayne,

This does not reflect what I said accurately.

This is the kind of cognitive imprecision Rand did regarding this issue in order to pose the kinds of questions you posed. They are correct and good questions--but for other contexts.

They shows a fear of guns in lieu of correct identification, which is a false dichotomy (going so far as to be an unrelated dichotomy). We should be afraid of guns, but that issue steps outside the topic I was discussing, which is trying to arrive at a correct identification of human nature--and a rejection of an incomplete identification of human nature that is being presented in Objectivism as the whole shebang fundamental-wise.

As an addition to my line of reasoning, the urge to bully and initiate force actually are parts of human nature as well as what I said. And they need both personal willingness to hold them in check (ethics) as well as governmental ones (rights of others). But that goes way down the line from where I'm at right now. I'm discussing the fundamental nature of human beings.

If we get that part wrong, the gun stuff (regardless of conclusion) becomes an arbitrary rule decided by some men (or by Rand or Rothbard or whoever) instead of a principle based on human nature.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Good point.

Let me posit a very realistic situation wherein both parties agree to have a child, and, in fact, sign a written contract to that fact with commitments to raise the child.

Now, let us posit that in the fifth month of pregnancy, the woman decides to have an abortion.

1) Does the man have a right to legally block that abortion based on the contractual rights?

2) How, in a free, society should this dispute be adjudicated?

Adam

1) No. But he has a right to recover actual damages. Which in this case would be nil.

2) This is a slave contract. Slave contracts would be enforceable[sic] only to the extent of recovering actual damages. E.g., you sign a contract to be someone's slave in exchange for $100. The judge would nullify the contract but you'd be on the hook for $100.

Shayne

Shayne:

Thanks for your response.

My follow up inquiries are:

Assuming that two(2) rational individuals agree to have a child by contract, after consultation with their respective sources of authority, your statement, not having asked for any clarification of the terms and conditions of the voluntarily, fully informed parties to this contract is that it is a "slave contract"? How so?

Second, as a principle of common law, you assert that the potential value of the "fetus" or "entity x undefined" is zero(0). How so?

Finally, where, in your envisioned free society, do the "judges" that would make the ruling you refer to come from?

Thanks

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So since the whole human race is interconnected and interdependent...

Shayne,

This does not reflect what I said accurately.

This is the kind of cognitive imprecision Rand did regarding this issue in order to pose the kinds of questions you posed. They are correct and good questions--but for other contexts.

It's close enough for the limited purposes of my question.

They shows a fear of guns in lieu of correct identification, which is a false dichotomy (going so far as to be an unrelated dichotomy). We should be afraid of guns, but that issue steps outside the topic I was discussing, which is trying to arrive at a correct identification of human nature--and a rejection of an incomplete identification of human nature that is being presented in Objectivism as the whole shebang fundamental-wise.

As an addition to my line of reasoning, the urge to bully and initiate force actually are parts of human nature as well as what I said. And they need both personal willingness to hold them in check (ethics) as well as governmental ones (rights of others). But that goes way down the line from where I'm at right now. I'm discussing the fundamental nature of human beings.

If we get that part wrong, the gun stuff (regardless of conclusion) becomes an arbitrary rule decided by some men (or by Rand or Rothbard or whoever) instead of a principle based on human nature.

Michael

I actually don't object to your line of discussion about how Rand missed the full range of human nature, you're making good points. I just want to know what political result you think your view of human nature results in, I want to know if I'm going to get a gun to my head to take care of (say) your kids or not. Is your answer that you don't know, or that you don't want to say?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My follow up inquiries are:

Assuming that two(2) rational individuals agree to have a child by contract, after consultation with their respective sources of authority, your statement, not having asked for any clarification of the terms and conditions of the voluntarily, fully informed parties to this contract is that it is a "slave contract"? How so?

If you think other terms are relevant to the discussion then you should list them. I'm going by the terms you actually listed. And the principle here isn't whether you choose to call it a "slave" contract or not. The principle is that when a contract is broken, the remedy is to, to a reasonable extent, put the other party back to where they originally were before the contract was made. I mean, if you give me a quarter in exchange for me promising to sing for you, and then I don't sing for you, no free-society court would put a gun to my head and make me sing. But they would make me give you your quarter back. It's a fairly simple idea, though I admit, it is my idea as far as I know (though I'm sure others have created the same legal theory before me). Do you disagree?

Second, as a principle of common law, you assert that the potential value of the "fetus" or "entity x undefined" is zero(0). How so?

This question misses the point, which is what I restated above. And the guy didn't contribute a "fetus", he contributed a really good time on his part and doesn't deserve repayment for it, unless the woman was really ugly, in which case maybe I'd award the going rate for male prostitution.

Finally, where, in your envisioned free society, do the "judges" that would make the ruling you refer to come from?

I don't know in what sense you mean "come from".

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shayne:

Thanks for the response.

I agree the principle is certainly not the term "slave contract" which is why I asked for clarification from the author of the term in this discussion, which was yourself.

I am going to disregard the male chauvinist statements that you made regarding the man and woman involved in the contract and place some of the specifics of said contract into the discussion:

1) the individuals involved have lived together for ten(10) years in a committed relationship and they mutually decide to have a child with each other. Being libertarians, they wish to exclude the state from interfering in their mutual and voluntary decision to have a child and raise the child as they choose..

2) they specifically include a clause prohibiting abortion unless the life of the mother is in jeopardy agreeing that there are stressors and hormonal fluxes that may or may not occur during a pregnancy and their mutual goal is to have a child and raise the child independent of the state.

3) being rational individuals they also include clauses about future joint custody of the child, if they sever their relationship sometime in the future.

Secondly, in terms of where do the "judges" come from, that was inartfully phrased.

Assuming we are discussing this in the current legal climate of the Family Court and Domestic Relations Laws of the various states we know where the judges come from.

I was inquiring as to a future free society and where judges would emanate from in your apparently knowledgeable opinion. This was a major discussion in the Anarcho-capitalist and libertarian seminars that we held in NY City in the late '60s and early '70s during arguments about competing systems of protection and competing systems of dispute resolution in a free society.

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just want to know what political result you think your view of human nature results in, I want to know if I'm going to get a gun to my head to take care of (say) your kids or not. Is your answer that you don't know, or that you don't want to say?

Shayne,

I doubt you will be getting your gun.

One of the best premises I have gotten from Beck so far is that freedom only works when people are predominantly ethical. When people are not ethical and they have or get freedom, shortly thereafter there is no freedom. They destroy it pronto with gang warfare.

There is no need for the government to force ethical people to care for those who are in a helpless state (like infancy). They will do that automatically out of the goodness of their hearts. But I believe some kind of protection of the helpless should be guaranteed against the bad guys, seeing that society will never be rid of them.

I don't mind a bad guy having, say the freedom of speech I have and him using it to say ugly things. I do mind a bad guy killing or torturing a person in a helpless state and getting off on a technicality within the principle. A right or principle that allows that is not a good right or principle. Equally, I do mind a bad guy in government abusing the protection of the weak to enslave the healthy.

The ONLY way I can see this working all the way down the premises is to be absolutely strict on cognitive precision. And that is where I am at right now. Trying to establish cognitive precision.

For example, saying that a baby has the right to life, and saying that this means he can pursue his interests without interference, but defining a baby as being unable to survive on his own, is a logical mess and a horrible grounds for any principle or right.

I think you are one of the first Objectivists I have encountered who is willing to take a peek at what I am talking about and actually willing to understand it. Usually I get a repetition of Rand, or accusation that I am trying to enslave people.

And even then, you are wary. But you can put away your gun. You won't need it--not with respect to me anyway.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

You may call me naive, but I am of the belief that there is always going to be the guy in the white hat to come along - and save the infant, or the innocent townfolk.

(Or the spotted owl, and this is not being facetious.)

Why - because there are those who are self-interested in reducing suffering or seeing justice done.

If I thought for a moment that this were at odds with Objectivism, then I'd have a problem with O'ism.

Sure, freedom carries with it a 'no guarantee clause'- and can be abused by the baddies - but the good guy will function more willingly and more effectively without State coercion.

The minimum protection you espouse, will occur 'organically' in a free and rationally principled society.

Tony

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you are one of the first Objectivists I have encountered who is willing to take a peek at what I am talking about and actually willing to understand it. Usually I get a repetition of Rand, or accusation that I am trying to enslave people.

And even then, you are wary. But you can put away your gun. You won't need it--not with respect to me anyway.

Objectivists are wary because statements such as yours have been used to justify tyranny.

However, if I understand you, the ground you are treading is ground that Objectivists don't know exists. There is a rich area of human life beyond bare natural rights which is the realm of man-made and consensually-agreed to law, and after having solidly grounded individual rights in reason and reality (something they are also oblivious to), we have to define what that is. Most man-made laws nowadays were not arrived at by consent, so Objectivists throw the baby out with the bathwater, not recognizing that it's not the man-made law that is necessarily bad, it's that the underlying system was not creatively constructed in such a manner that consent was actually respected.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to disregard the male chauvinist statements that you made regarding the man and woman involved in the contract and place some of the specifics of said contract into the discussion:

And I am going to refrain from answering until you substantiate that because I am most certainly not a "male chauvinist".

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to disregard the male chauvinist statements that you made regarding the man and woman involved in the contract and place some of the specifics of said contract into the discussion:

And I am going to refrain from answering until you substantiate that because I am most certainly not a "male chauvinist".

Shayne

"And the guy didn't contribute a "fetus", he contributed a really good time on his part and doesn't deserve repayment for it, unless the woman was really ugly, in which case maybe I'd award the going rate for male prostitution."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And the guy didn't contribute a "fetus", he contributed a really good time on his part and doesn't deserve repayment for it, unless the woman was really ugly, in which case maybe I'd award the going rate for male prostitution."

I find your reaction baffling. I'm saying the woman doesn't owe the man anything if she decides to terminate pregnancy, and you're saying that's male chauvinism. So I guess if I said the woman owed the man $1M in damages then that'd be woman's rights?

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"And the guy didn't contribute a "fetus", he contributed a really good time on his part and doesn't deserve repayment for it, unless the woman was really ugly, in which case maybe I'd award the going rate for male prostitution."

I find your reaction baffling. I'm saying the woman doesn't owe the man anything if she decides to terminate pregnancy, and you're saying that's male chauvinism. So I guess if I said the woman owed the man $1M in damages then that'd be woman's rights?

Shayne

This is just wasteful dialogue, in my opinion. In the contractual situation I presented, by the very nature of it being a contract, implied that there would be terms if the pregnancy was aborted.

However, you chose to describe it with what was quoted. OK. Let's either move forward with the actual issue or not. As Governor Christie said, "The choice is yours."

Thanks.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just wasteful dialogue, in my opinion.

I agree, but if you are going to attach a "male chauvinist" epithet to me then I'm justified in putting the useful dialog on hold until you either retract it or justify it. This is a simple matter of justice. You want to talk about justice, but your actions here imply that you don't really care about it, which leaves me wondering what your real motives are.

Let's either move forward with the actual issue or not. As Governor Christie said, "The choice is yours."

The choice is yours to retract or justify. I'm not the one who tossed in an insult into the middle of the conversation.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is just wasteful dialogue, in my opinion.

I agree, but if you are going to attach a "male chauvinist" epithet to me then I'm justified in putting the useful dialog on hold until you either retract it or justify it. This is a simple matter of justice. You want to talk about justice, but your actions here imply that you don't really care about it, which leaves me wondering what your real motives are.

Let's either move forward with the actual issue or not. As Governor Christie said, "The choice is yours."

The choice is yours to retract or justify. I'm not the one who tossed in an insult into the middle of the conversation.

Shayne

Shayne:

No problem. We do not have to continue the discussion then.

Thanks for your time.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His comments on the show reflect zero comprehension of any of the points I have made. Prager represents the best of the religious minds out there, but his brain is completely insulated from genuine, clear-thinking rationality.

He sure doesn't come across well in this clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMH8SxpeJ9Y

ND,

Wow! That is an excerpt from "The Worst of Dennis Prager." He is normally a lot more respectful than that. I once heard him say that We, The Living was one of his all-time favorite books. He calls her libertarian position "idiotic" here, but often interviews libertarian authors and even recommends their work. Prager admires John Stossel, who openly praises Rand and identifies as libertarian. Stossel is a frequent guest. He sometimes mentions Rand favorably, and Prager refrains from comment.

One thing I love about Prager is that he often says that he prefers clarity over agreement. That's usually the way he comes across, but he has a major blind spot regarding Rand. I was once told by Prager's call screener that he didn't want to discuss Ayn Rand because her ethical views were too far outside the mainstream. Some Rand admirers do get through occasionally, and he is usually very civil with them. He really is a decent man, despite the angry, offensive impression he gives here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

A Devil's Advocate question:

That is why rights are only applicable to the mother prior to birth (or, IMO, prior to fetal viability). So I don't think the abortion issue really turns on the question of whether the unborn fetus is human. I am certain she would have said the fetus was human at a certain stage of development.

Is your position then, that fetal rights are dependent upon viability?

Adam

Adam,

Yes, absolutely. The mother can no longer claim the right to end a life that is not dependent on her biologically.

So does that make me the devil? I've been called worse.

In fact, I've been called worse today. :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

A Devil's Advocate question:

That is why rights are only applicable to the mother prior to birth (or, IMO, prior to fetal viability). So I don't think the abortion issue really turns on the question of whether the unborn fetus is human. I am certain she would have said the fetus was human at a certain stage of development.

Is your position then, that fetal rights are dependent upon viability?

Adam

Adam,

Yes, absolutely. The mother can no longer claim the right to end a life that is not dependent on her biologically.

So does that make me the devil? I've been called worse.

In fact, I've been called worse today. :rolleyes:

Dennis:

Lol.

Not my style. The problem that will arise, is that as technology advances, the issue of viability of the "fetus" or "x-entity" that is in the womb moves closer and closer to the actual impregnation.

Therefore, you will be on that slippery slope of defending a position that will be sliding out from under you as technology becomes more proficient at sustaining premature "x-entity" survival.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis:

A Devil's Advocate question:

That is why rights are only applicable to the mother prior to birth (or, IMO, prior to fetal viability). So I don't think the abortion issue really turns on the question of whether the unborn fetus is human. I am certain she would have said the fetus was human at a certain stage of development.

Is your position then, that fetal rights are dependent upon viability?

Adam

Adam,

Yes, absolutely. The mother can no longer claim the right to end a life that is not dependent on her biologically.

So does that make me the devil? I've been called worse.

In fact, I've been called worse today. :rolleyes:

Dennis:

Lol.

Not my style. The problem that will arise, is that as technology advances, the issue of viability of the "fetus" or "x-entity" that is in the womb moves closer and closer to the actual impregnation.

Therefore, you will be on that slippery slope of defending a position that will be sliding out from under you as technology becomes more proficient at sustaining premature "x-entity" survival.

Adam

Hmm, good point, Adam.

To take the extreme, if (when) any fertilized ovum can consistently be brought to full term in vitro, what then?

Which essentially demolishes the biological-consequentialist argument,and shifts the burden back on to morality. No?

Difficult one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tony:

Yes, that is the way I see the argumentation ending up based on that premise.

I have been on both sides of this argument. I have concluded that objectively, the "x-entity" is a life from the moment of conception.

What kind of life and the acquisition of rights is an extremely complicated issue.

Michael is involved in a solid attempt at organizing the issue.

I am eagerly looking forward to the discussion and argument based on his exposition of the issue.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dennis,

I am very familiar with the arguments you presented. They still hold the vice of dismissal.

For instance, the argument you make about a fetus being a "potential" human is received by the mainstream person as a dismissal of the issue--at best. Many feel this is a sidestep. The logic would go something like this:

You claim that all humans have rights and a fetus is only a potential human. That means that it doesn't fall within "all humans" because it is not a real human, only a potential one. Thus a fetus doesn't have rights because it is not actually a human being. Hmmmmm... OK... (smiles benevolently, pats you on the head and moves on to religion where the fetus is considered as a real existing individual human life).

The reasoning is common sense. What could a fetus be if not human? A giraffe? I'm not talking about my thinking at this moment. I'm talking about what goes on in the head of the religious person. You will never convince an anti-abortion person that abortion is not a violation of the right to life by simply calling that stage of an individual's life a "potential human."

To be honest, looking at the issue from a biological stance, the "potential human" argument comes off as semantic game-playing, not as a true definition. It arbitrarily lops off a universal part of the human experience in order to fit human life into a definition.

I believe the best approach is to admit that fetus is an individual human life and define rights based on a standard that takes this into account.

I read somewhere that we all go through three phases of existing within a society: (1) complete dependence on others, (2) independence from others, and (2) interdependence with others. This is universal to growth within our species and pertains to all of us. In other words, this is a fact anyone can observe.

But these are not rigid categories where you step out of one and are transformed into the other from one minute to the next. Growth from one to the other happens gradually and there is overlapping. First you are in the womb with total dependence while you grow enough stuff to handle the biology of feeding (including breathing) outside the womb. Then the direct biological dependence through the umbilical cord is severed and your conscious awareness to deal with the outside world kicks in, but you are still totally dependent on the others around you to survive. As you grow, you gradually become independent of them, reaching full independence in late teens or so. Then you construct your adult life by establishing (and/or maintaining from the past) your own network of other people you live and interact with--your own personal community so to speak. This interdependence phase is rather plastic and you can change folks all the time, but you still live within a community. You can reject it altogether and become a solitary monk, but these folks are extremely rare individuals in our species.

That is human nature just as much as saying humans have a volitional conceptual consciousness.

Now back to rights. I have no problem whatsoever with defining something like the right to life as starting with the phase of independence from others (or some point where that phase starts), marked by a definable event like birth, if the argument can be made logically. (And I believe it can, but it will not look like what we use right now.) I do have a problem with defining a person who is in the phase of complete dependence on others as only a "potential" person. That's a flawed premise, using a definition that is impossible to substantiate with biology, and any religious person sees it right from the very beginning.

And even if it were not a flawed premise, the traditional Objectivist argument has basically boiled down to "You are wrong and I am right," then there are comments about enslaving the mother. Rand even throws in that anyone who dares to entertain disagreeing with her on this is evil and vicious. But her argument does not touch on the fundamental issue in the religious person's mind. It dismisses it.

You talked about the religious person's brain being "completely insulated from genuine, clear-thinking rationality." This is one case where I believe the religious person is acting rationally and trying to stay within logical consistency. But the rational case is flawed at the premise level with a semantic sleight-of-hand. The religious person sees it, too. His mental "insulation" on this issue comes more from this point than from being contaminated by faith.

Nobody will never convince a religious person that a fetus is anything but an individual human life. Actually, if we are using a biological standard, they will not convince me, either. I see a fetus as an individual human life that is growing and is in the total dependence stage.

Humans are not just rational animals. They are only rational animals at maturity and they have to grow into that. If folks want to make the case that rights pertain only to mature human beings, that is another approach. I don't believe it will be successful at convincing many people, but I do believe a sliding scale of gradually increasing rights would be.

Michael

Michael,

First of all, let’s dispense with the “evil and vicious” nonsense. We are intelligent people trying to resolve a dilemma. We disagree. Big deal. There’s a lot of that going around.

You said you were very familiar with my arguments, then proceeded to ignore them. My original post made very clear what ‘potential’ means in the context of the embryo/fetus: not biologically independent. There is no semantic game-playing when you say exactly what you mean by the term “potential.” Any verbal “sleight-of-hand” is yours, not mine.

I do not understand the relevance of your lengthy description about human growth and development. My post made very clear that there is no debate about whether “human nature” applies with respect to all three cases: the unborn fetus, the child and the debilitated. No one to my knowledge would question that there is distinctively human life from the moment the brain develops until death. So what? Are you seriously going to argue that anything that is “human” has the right to whatever its immediate survival requires, even if that means enslaving the rest of the human race?

Apparently your belief in the “clear-thinking rationality” of religious people extends to their conviction about the divine source of human rights, because your argument drops the context of the Objectivist position.

In Objectivism, volition is the hierarchical philosophical antecedent to the concept of rights. It explains why humans have rights and not lower animals. To say that the quality of being “human” endows a thing with the right to survive—thereby abrogating the “volition” of all those who must support them—is to steal the concept of “rights’ epistemologically.

Now that’s what I call a verbal “sleight-of-hand.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now