Ayn Rand on Abortion

[Genius Aspirant 0]

I have repeated over and over why I think life triggers rights.

GA, sometimes a little documentation can be very helpful. Can you point to one (or more) specific postings of yours (by number or embedded link) where you explained "why life triggers rights" (in your view)? I don't mean repetitions of the view that "viability" is or is not the test of when human life begins, but specifically why human life triggers rights.

Ok, I have found a few that may be helpful. I think the earlier ones may be more directly related to your question, so will list them in the order from earliest to latest: 80964; 80967; 81107; 81384; 81409; and 81426.

I do think the life triggering righs point is generally accepted here, right? I think the issue has been when life begins. But if I am wrong about that I would like to be corrected.

[Arnold 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

[RayK 0]

I think the problem here is between what we define as potential and what we define as actual.

I would like to recommend the same thing I mentioned in another thread to you. That recommendation is for you to read or re-read two books, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Maybe a couple of quick quotes may help you to see why it is so important.

Chapter four of Leonard Peikoff's OPAR which is titled Objectivity begins as follows:

"According to Objectivism, epistemology is necessary for practical purposes, as a guide to man in the proper use of his conceptual faculty. We are ready to concretize this claim. We can now begin to identify the rules men must follow in their thinking if knowledge, rather than error or delusion, is their goal.

These rules can be condensed into one general principle: thinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality. Or, in the memorable words of the old Dragnet TV series, which can serve as the motto of all reality-oriented thought: "Just give us the facts, ma'am." But how does one reach "just the facts"? The answer lies in the concept of objectivity; it requires that one grasp the full philosophic meaning and implications of this concept.

When you grasp this concept, you will have an invaluable tool enabling you to assess and, if necessary, improve the quality of your own thinking. You will also understand why, out of all the possibilities, Ayn Rand chose to call her philosophy "Objectivism.""

Further on in the same chapter Leonard Peikoff states:

"Different views of the nature of concepts lead to different views of the nature of cognition. They lead to different answers to the central question of epistemology: what is knowledge and how does man acquire it?

The objective approach to concepts leads to the view that, beyond the perceptual level, knowledge is the grasp of an object through an active, reality-based process chosen by the subject.

Concepts, like every other mode of cognition, must conform to the facts of reality. Human knowledge, therefore, is the grasp, not the creation, of an object. Beyond the perceptual level, however, such conformity can be attained only by a complex process of abstraction and integration. Since this process is not automatic, it is not automatically right, either. Man cannot, therefore, adopt a passive policy, one of waiting for truth to enter his mind. In the use of a concept, as in its formation, he must choose and act. He must initiate step-by-step cognitive functioning; he must be willing to expend the effort required by each step; and he must choose the steps carefully. They must constitute a method of cognition, a method that makes it possible for man's consciousness, when dealing with abstractions, to achieve by deliberate policy what is not guaranteed to it automatically: to remain in contact with the realm of reality."

And one more quote a little futher into the chapter:

"Now we must proceed to the next question: if objectivity requires a method of cognition, what is it? The answer in a word is: logic. Logic is a volitional consciousness's method of conforming to reality. It is the method of reason.

Ayn Rand did not discover logic; Aristotle did. But Ayn Rand's definition covers the essence of the subject: "Logic is the art of noncontradictory identification."(7) The two key terms are "identification" and "noncontradictory.""

You are right we have problems between our definitions, I always attempt to make sure that my definitions conform to the facts of reality.

(Betsy, if my quotes from OPAR are to large I understand if you delete my post)

[Genius Aspirant 0]

I think the problem here is between what we define as potential and what we define as actual.

I would like to recommend the same thing I mentioned in another thread to you. That recommendation is for you to read or re-read two books, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology and Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. Maybe a couple of quick quotes may help you to see why it is so important.

Chapter four of Leonard Peikoff's OPAR which is titled Objectivity begins as follows:

"According to Objectivism, epistemology is necessary for practical purposes, as a guide to man in the proper use of his conceptual faculty. We are ready to concretize this claim. We can now begin to identify the rules men must follow in their thinking if knowledge, rather than error or delusion, is their goal.

These rules can be condensed into one general principle: thinking, to be valid, must adhere to reality. Or, in the memorable words of the old Dragnet TV series, which can serve as the motto of all reality-oriented thought: "Just give us the facts, ma'am." But how does one reach "just the facts"? The answer lies in the concept of objectivity; it requires that one grasp the full philosophic meaning and implications of this concept.

When you grasp this concept, you will have an invaluable tool enabling you to assess and, if necessary, improve the quality of your own thinking. You will also understand why, out of all the possibilities, Ayn Rand chose to call her philosophy "Objectivism.""

Further on in the same chapter Leonard Peikoff states:

"Different views of the nature of concepts lead to different views of the nature of cognition. They lead to different answers to the central question of epistemology: what is knowledge and how does man acquire it?

The objective approach to concepts leads to the view that, beyond the perceptual level, knowledge is the grasp of an object through an active, reality-based process chosen by the subject.

Concepts, like every other mode of cognition, must conform to the facts of reality. Human knowledge, therefore, is the grasp, not the creation, of an object. Beyond the perceptual level, however, such conformity can be attained only by a complex process of abstraction and integration. Since this process is not automatic, it is not automatically right, either. Man cannot, therefore, adopt a passive policy, one of waiting for truth to enter his mind. In the use of a concept, as in its formation, he must choose and act. He must initiate step-by-step cognitive functioning; he must be willing to expend the effort required by each step; and he must choose the steps carefully. They must constitute a method of cognition, a method that makes it possible for man's consciousness, when dealing with abstractions, to achieve by deliberate policy what is not guaranteed to it automatically: to remain in contact with the realm of reality."

And one more quote a little futher into the chapter:

"Now we must proceed to the next question: if objectivity requires a method of cognition, what is it? The answer in a word is: logic. Logic is a volitional consciousness's method of conforming to reality. It is the method of reason.

Ayn Rand did not discover logic; Aristotle did. But Ayn Rand's definition covers the essence of the subject: "Logic is the art of noncontradictory identification."(7) The two key terms are "identification" and "noncontradictory.""

You are right we have problems between our definitions, I always attempt to make sure that my definitions conform to the facts of reality.

(Betsy, if my quotes from OPAR are to large I understand if you delete my post)

I hope that Betsy does not delete this. These are very interesting and clear. But forgive me if I dont quite see the connection to my position or post? I am talking about the reality of the fetus -- its viability, its life, its abilities. These are all questions of objective verifiable reality. I dont think we differ on that. Where I think we differ is when rights attach. I have set forth a logical sequence above to explain what I mean when I say a fetus has a right to life; I have also elsewhere offered logical arguments about why I say such rights attach at viability, rather than birth.

[RayK 0]

GA, the quotes relate because your definitions/concepts are not tied to reality without contradiction which makes them illogical. You have not been able to overcome that fact that a woman has the right to her life and you do not have the right to use force against her to take the unborn entity out of her. You have not been able to overcome the force you are going to have to apply to get people to pay for a choice that they did not accept. Your attempt to use "viable" as the point of gaining rights is contradictory as the fetus belongs to the woman, not you or anyone else, and hence why your ideas are full of contradictions and illogical.

When you run into a contradiction, "check your premise."

[Arnold 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

[Arnold 0]

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

I didn't think I had to put (separate) next to 'independent', every time I used the word. It seems I was wrong. Until it is separate, it doesn't live in a world of individuals. Individuals happen to be (separate) independent of one another.

You say that you don't see how being in the womb has any bearing on rights. That is because you refuse to grasp what rights are - see (point 3).

I understand the emotional aspects of your point of view. I am in a similar position when it comes to torturing animals. It is reprehensible, but it can't be defended by appeal to rights. The dreadful fact is that we have a right to do a lot of disgusting things. I do think that you need to get a clear understanding of what 'rights' involve because, otherwise we end up speaking of different things.

[B. Royce 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

Gene, you ask why is birth a significant difference. You might as well ask why keeping your eyes open while driving a car is a significant difference. Or, to be more directly relevant, ask a woman who has just given birth and is holding her baby in her arms, why is that any different than carrying a fetus in her womb. You cannot argue that differences are meaningless; that is, that they make no difference. You can only assert that differences are meaningless; but then your assertion is devoid of meaning.

[JohnRgt 0]

Gee John, not sure what the fixation is on homosexuals, but there are threads here on that and I really do think it is off topic.

I guess it's conceivable that someone over the age of 12, somewhere in this vast world, would be affected by such a twist, but you have no grounds to assume that it would work with anyone here. (If this is a crush-induced burst of insanity, know that I'm already in an LTR.)

But that is such a remote possibility -- and would raise a host of other problems (talk about over population -- and I cant imagine any reason anyone would want to have such a capability), that it really is an absurd scenario and not worth much discussion.

If the entities of the scenario did have rights, the consequences of observing their rights would be irrelevant.

I think we really have to just agree to disagree here.

We can agree that you make a premise of life starting at conception. The problem with that is that it's completely arbitrary, leading to rights depravation.

We can also agree that you make viability and potentiality a factor in assigning rights to an entity. Where else in the law does this happen?

You are fixated on an offhand remark

Holding you accountable for a rationalization regarding the thinker this forum focusses on isn't fixation (is this that crush again?) The fixation has come from your refusal to acknowledge that you were wrong, even thought you felt -- feel? -- that Miss Rand had struggled with that issue.

You also seem to like counting your own questions within a response that go unanswered as though we are in a chat room

You mean I wonder why perfectly valid questions go unanswered. I now think the answer is clear as it can't be a coincidence that you do't answer questions that go to the heart of the issue.

I have repeated over and over why I think life triggers rights.

Would one more, clear, complete, hierarchal presentation of the argument no one seems to know about hurt you?

Neither you nor anyone here has explained why passing through the birth canal miraculously gives an infant rights.

That's because no one has ever claimed that. As for the arguments hat have bee offered to you: If you don't see their validity, you need "retraining."

The entity -- all of its functions and abilities, are exactly the same the day before it is born as it is the day after its born.

No they're not. See System Builder's post, the one you praised to the hills but haven't chewed as of yet, and many others.

The nature of the entity does not change.

Wrong, as your next sentence

Where it is, and how it survives does.

shows.

But that is also true about the infant in the hospital and the infant at home; the infant in an incubator and the infant out of the incubator; and any number of other similar transitions/changes.

Healthy infants, the entities under discussion, don't need incubators. Further, as has been explained to you several times by several posters, the infant is an independent entity. It's fully functional where it wasn't. It's in the world. Its needs can be tended to by anyone willing to do so, not just the mother. It's no longer a part of someone else, but is an actual, standalone entity that now has rights that are commensurate with its nature.

[JohnRgt 0]

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well.

Maybe the ease with which you think this can happen is the problem. Arnold's POV is demonstrably inline with Reality. Yours, because you make an arbitrary premise of rights attaching the moment the technology of the day make the fetus a viable infant, isn't.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

I didn't think I had to put (separate) next to 'independent', every time I used the word. It seems I was wrong. Until it is separate, it doesn't live in a world of individuals. Individuals happen to be (separate) independent of one another.

You say that you don't see how being in the womb has any bearing on rights. That is because you refuse to grasp what rights are - see (point 3).

I understand the emotional aspects of your point of view. I am in a similar position when it comes to torturing animals. It is reprehensible, but it can't be defended by appeal to rights. The dreadful fact is that we have a right to do a lot of disgusting things. I do think that you need to get a clear understanding of what 'rights' involve because, otherwise we end up speaking of different things.

I am not sure if definitions really help us here (?). A fetus is clearly "living in a world of individuals." I assume you agree that it is alive. I am not sure where else it then "is" except in this world, which consists of individuals. Individual human beings have rights. A fetus, once viable, is an individual human being. I understand you disagree, and place importance upon location. I focus more on abilities/capabilities. I am not sure we can take this any further?

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

Gene, you ask why is birth a significant difference. You might as well ask why keeping your eyes open while driving a car is a significant difference. Or, to be more directly relevant, ask a woman who has just given birth and is holding her baby in her arms, why is that any different than carrying a fetus in her womb. You cannot argue that differences are meaningless; that is, that they make no difference. You can only assert that differences are meaningless; but then your assertion is devoid of meaning.

I am not sure what your point is. Of course there are differences. I did not say there is a difference. There is a difference between a girl child and a boy child -- but we dont say that one has rights and one does not. That is a difference that, for the purposes of rights, has no significance. So the important point here is the significance of the difference. You unfortunately took one of my words -- difference -- completely out of context.

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Gee John, not sure what the fixation is on homosexuals, but there are threads here on that and I really do think it is off topic.

I guess it's conceivable that someone over the age of 12, somewhere in this vast world, would be affected by such a twist, but you have no grounds to assume that it would work with anyone here. (If this is a crush-induced burst of insanity, know that I'm already in an LTR.)

I dont understand this comment, but I guess you are asserting your masculinity? Go for it.

But that is such a remote possibility -- and would raise a host of other problems (talk about over population -- and I cant imagine any reason anyone would want to have such a capability), that it really is an absurd scenario and not worth much discussion.

If the entities of the scenario did have rights, the consequences of observing their rights would be irrelevant.

Absolutely. If you read my post carefully, you would see that I was talking about the incentive to try to create the technology, not the question of rights. Others here have decried the consequences of giving a fetus rights -- I dont give any weight to such arguments.

I think we really have to just agree to disagree here.

We can agree that you make a premise of life starting at conception. The problem with that is that it's completely arbitrary, leading to rights depravation.

Define arbitrary? I am not sure how this is any more or less arbitrary than any other event -- and this seems much less. What rights deprivation? A woman can do whatever she wants with her body -- she cant kill the fetus once it is viable. She has every right to remove it. Please explain to me what possible right of hers, or anyone elses is violated.

We can also agree that you make viability and potentiality a factor in assigning rights to an entity. Where else in the law does this happen?

By law are you referring to actual law that we have, or to what law should be? In actual law viability is the test of the rights of a fetus in US law under Roe v Wade -- I dont see how that advances this unless you are adopting the reasoning of that case?

You are fixated on an offhand remark

Holding you accountable for a rationalization regarding the thinker this forum focusses on isn't fixation (is this that crush again?) The fixation has come from your refusal to acknowledge that you were wrong, even thought you felt -- feel? -- that Miss Rand had struggled with that issue.

I have already addressed this. Let me know if you have something more specific you want to discuss about it. There is an entire thread on this forum about it.

You also seem to like counting your own questions within a response that go unanswered as though we are in a chat room

You mean I wonder why perfectly valid questions go unanswered. I now think the answer is clear as it can't be a coincidence that you do't answer questions that go to the heart of the issue.

I have repeated over and over why I think life triggers rights.

Would one more, clear, complete, hierarchal presentation of the argument no one seems to know about hurt you?

Hurt? More tire. See my post above pointing to other posts. If you want to set out a reasoned logical argument proving birth is correct as the place to trigger rights, I would certainly welcome it.

Neither you nor anyone here has explained why passing through the birth canal miraculously gives an infant rights.

That's because no one has ever claimed that. As for the arguments hat have bee offered to you: If you don't see their validity, you need "retraining."

Mmmmm, are we back to that masculine thing? Or the gulag? Nice jab. Now I gather you are saying that rights do not exist upon birth. That is different from what others here have argued. I see below that in fact you might think that something besides birth gives rights.

The entity -- all of its functions and abilities, are exactly the same the day before it is born as it is the day after its born.

No they're not. See System Builder's post, the one you praised to the hills but haven't chewed as of yet, and many others.

Yes, he was thoughtful and respectful, and well reasoned. I just dont agree with that point. And I have science on my side.

The nature of the entity does not change.

Wrong, as your next sentence

Where it is, and how it survives does.

shows.

But that is also true about the infant in the hospital and the infant at home; the infant in an incubator and the infant out of the incubator; and any number of other similar transitions/changes.

Healthy infants, the entities under discussion, don't need incubators. Further, as has been explained to you several times by several posters, the infant is an independent entity. It's fully functional where it wasn't. It's in the world. Its needs can be tended to by anyone willing to do so, not just the mother. It's no longer a part of someone else, but is an actual, standalone entity that now has rights that are commensurate with its nature.

So I gather from this last sentence that an unhealthy infant -- however one defines that -- does not have rights and then can be killed? That certainly would increase the incentive for small kids to avoid the common cold!

[Genius Aspirant 0]

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well.

Maybe the ease with which you think this can happen is the problem. Arnold's POV is demonstrably inline with Reality. Yours, because you make an arbitrary premise of rights attaching the moment the technology of the day make the fetus a viable infant, isn't.

Reality -- as observable, actual, and verifiable. Both birth, and viability, are part of Reality. The question is which of these do we choose and why. Why being the most important, and the most neglected, here.

[B. Royce 0]

Where we differ is on whether a fetus is an actual or a potential.

The fetus is NOT an actual separate being. One needs to be a (separate) independent in order to exercise (or have others do so), the rights of an independent being.

The rights of a separate being are useless in a womb.

I get the impression that you gloss over points that don't sit well with you, rather than come up with good reasons to counter them. It is as if arguments put to you are ignored, because an automated response simply drives you to repeat what you believe. For example, you have not indicated that you understand that viability is not the criteria for rights. You have not indicated that you understand that rights apply between separate beings in a social context. Avoiding points like this leads to others either repeating them, or giving up as being ignored.

Listen Arnold, your second set of comments so easily applies to you as well. We are both repeating each other. Now we can either agree to disagree, or we can try to take the conversation to a deeper level and see if we can ascertain why we think the way we do, and thus what our real differences are. I am open to doing that, you may or may not be.

Your first sentence is interesting, and I think embeds within it exactly my point. You say that "one needs to be a (separate) independent [entity?] in order to exercise (or have others to do so), the rights of an independent being." (my bolding) Now, for me, a viable fetus' rights can be exercised by others, just as with an infant. A viable fetus is, by definition, independent (that is, it can exist independently of the mother). The only issue I think here is "separate." Why is separate so important? And even if it is, when a fetus becomes viable it can be separated from the woman -- so why does that not solve the problem?

Just to make sure we all understand what I am arguing here, I am saying that IF a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy (which she has every right to do -- she is not obligated to stay pregnant), AND if the fetus is viable, THEN the fetus has a right to life, and that right to life is protected by removing it from the mother (thus respecting her rights) and allowing it to live, rather than killing it (which still respects the rights of the mother, but violates the fundamental right to life of the fetus).

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

Gene, you ask why is birth a significant difference. You might as well ask why keeping your eyes open while driving a car is a significant difference. Or, to be more directly relevant, ask a woman who has just given birth and is holding her baby in her arms, why is that any different than carrying a fetus in her womb. You cannot argue that differences are meaningless; that is, that they make no difference. You can only assert that differences are meaningless; but then your assertion is devoid of meaning.

I am not sure what your point is. Of course there are differences. I did not say there is a difference. There is a difference between a girl child and a boy child -- but we dont say that one has rights and one does not. That is a difference that, for the purposes of rights, has no significance. So the important point here is the significance of the difference. You unfortunately took one of my words -- difference -- completely out of context.

My point is obvious: your assertion that rights adhere to a woman's fetus is devoid of meaning.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Rather than repeat your view, attack mine, in particular the points below.

1) A fetus is NOT independent. When it is born it is independent, but then no longer a fetus. It is called a baby. By making this distinction fuzzy, the conclusions will be equally fuzzy. Just because it can be independent, doesn't mean it IS independent. 'Can' and 'is' are different.

2) An abortion usually results in the death of the fetus in the womb. If the fetus is 'born' alive after abortion, it is a baby that survived abortion, and is not a fetus. It is no longer part of the abortion process, it is post abortion. No one is advocating a 'birth' followed by murder. Being inside your body is more than 'geography'; it is part of your body, and no one can have a say until it is no longer so.

3) Right to life: I will not repeat what it is, and you will have to re-read my attempts to explain it's grounding. Suffice to say, a fetus doesn't come under the definition. It is neither separate or in a social context of independently acting individuals. The rights of individuals apply to individuals - unless you want to change that concept. I don't see how it can be done without contradiction.

Fair enough. I argue a fetus IS independent. You will say, but no, it is in the womb. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than saying it is in an incubator. You will say no, it is dependent at that moment on its mother. Yes, but that is no more a measure of independence than requiring its mother, or someone else, to breast or bottle feed it.

Believe me, I see the attraction of using birth as the important point, but no one has yet been able to explain WHY that is a significant difference -- other than that it is different. And yes, of course a fetus in the womb is.....in.......the mother. But I really dont see how that has any bearing on rights. The fetus is just as part of a social network as an infant. It has a father. The father may have some feelings/connection/interaction with the fetus. There may be others in this world -- in the social context in which the fetus, the mother, the father, operate -- who have an interest in the fetus.

By saying that most abortions end in the killing of the fetus, are you suggesting that if that were not the case, the issue of its rights would be different? I am not sure otherwise what the relevance of that statement is -- not to mention that medical science today makes such an outcome unnecessary in most abortions.

GA did not attack -- did not offer any arguments against -- Arnold's view. All she did was repeat her views. She has had many opportunities and requests to substantiate her views with arguments and has not done so. As a result, no new facts or reasoning are forthcoming on either side.

As a result, I am closing this thread and cautioning GA that I expect her to present facts and reasoning in support of any other position on any other thread where her views are challenged.