New Supreme Court Nominee

Shelby

Experimental Member
Joined
May 17, 2004
Posts
2,129
Media
0
Likes
15
Points
258
Location
in the internet
Originally posted by GottaBigOne@Nov 1 2005, 02:32 PM
Yes Shelby, the financial responsibilities of the father should be a choice, women don't have a monopoly on autonomy.
[post=357421]Quoted post[/post]​

Thanks for that.

Contrary to what one might think judging by my previous post, I do believe women should have the ultimate decision making power with regards to their own bodies. I just threw that shit up to point out inequities many would prefer to ignore.
 

wonderland

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 13, 2004
Posts
249
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
238
Location
Illinois
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Female
I see the right to an abortion as a bigger issue. Take way the right to say what happens to my body and what freedom do I have? The issue for me is where does the government stop controlling my life?
 

madame_zora

Sexy Member
Joined
May 5, 2004
Posts
9,608
Media
0
Likes
52
Points
258
Location
Ohio
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
I agree. A woman is the only one who will endure the pregnancy, not the man- therefore it should be primarily (if not exclusively) her decision what she will do with her body. One would hope that in a marital situation, something this important would be discussed, but I feel strongly that that is an issue between those two people and not the courts.

That being said, I feel that if a woman wants to KEEP a baby, she should be required to get the father's agreement in advance for support. If he does NOT want to support the child, she could then decide if she wants to keep it at her own expense. If he has not agreed to this prior to fetal viability (the time by which she could obtain an abortion), then he cannot be held responsible financially for the child. I have seen too many women trap men into miserable situations by tricking them into thinking they're using birth control when in fact they are not. Pure bullshit.

A man should NEVER have the right to force a woman to carry a child she doesn't want under ANY circumstances. If it were men who carried babies, this discussion wouldn't even be happening.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by GottaBigOne+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Dilznick

Prove it.

Things exist. To deny this presupposes one&#39;s existence and is self defeating. Things can not cease to be, they merely change form.

Life exists. To deny this results in the same as above. Life can cease to be, to a living entity there are two alternatives, life or death. The concept of values then can only be discussed in relation to living entities. They are the only things in which their existence is dependant on certain conditions. Those conditions which are conducive to its life are good, those which are not are bad. It is right then to seek the good, and wrong to seek the bad. To seek the bad is to seek one&#39;s own destruction.
[post=357412]Quoted post[/post]​
[/b][/quote]
Haha, that&#39;s proof? No. It&#39;s just a re-stating of what Objectivism is (more or less anyway). Your argument is thence reduced to "I am right because Ayn Rand says so." We&#39;re a country of many religious and moral perspectives and no one moral system is supposed to reign supreme here, including Objectivism. At least that is how democracies are supposed to work.

Read and weep:





Critique of "The Objectivist Ethics"


1. Rand&#39;s Argument:

Rand&#39;s argument seems to be as follows. I enclose in parentheses required implicit premises that I have introduced. Major conclusions are marked by asterisks.


1. Value is agent-relative; things can only be valuable for particular entities. premise

2. Something is valuable to an entity, only if the entity faces alternatives. premise


3. No non-living things face any alternatives. premise

4. Therefore, values exist only for living things. from 1,2,3


5. Anything an entity acts to gain or keep is a value for that entity. premise

6. Every living thing acts to maintain its life, for its own sake. premise


(7. There is no other thing that they act to gain or keep for its own sake.) implicit premise

8. Therefore, its own life, and nothing else, is valuable for its own sake, for any living thing. from 5,6,7

9. Therefore, life and nothing else is valuable for its own sake. from 4,8


(10. Everyone should always do whatever promotes what is valuable for himself.) implicit premise

*11. Therefore, everyone should always do whatever promotes his own life. from 8,10

12. A person can live only if he is rational. premise

*13. Therefore, everyone should be 100% rational. from 11,12



2. Problems with the argument:


The argument contains eight fatal flaws.

Objection (i):

The first is that premise 1 begs the question.

One of the central groups of opponents Rand is facing is people who believe in absolute value, and not just agent-relative value. The absolutist view is that it is possible for some things to be good, simply, or in an absolute sense; whereas agent-relativists think that things can only be good for or relative to certain individuals, and that what is good relative to one individual need not be good relative to another. (N.B., this should not be confused with what are commonly called "moral relativism" and "cultural relativism.")

Another way to put the issue is this: absolutists think that value exists as a property of something--most likely, as a property of certain states of affairs. For instance, if I say, "It is good that intelligent life exists on the Earth," I am saying that the state of intelligent life existing on the Earth has a certain property: goodness. Agent-relativists think, instead, that value exists only as a relationship between a thing and a person. For instance, an agent-relativist might say, "It is good for me that intelligent life exists on the Earth," and this would mean: the state of intelligent life existing on the Earth bears a certain relationship to me: it is good for me. But an agent relativist would not say it is good simply.

Rand bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion.


Objection (ii):

Premise 2 seems to be false. If I knew that I was inevitably going to get a million dollars tomorrow--there&#39;s no way I can avoid it--would that mean that the money will have no value? Again, Rand offers no defense of this assertion.

Perhaps her thought was that "good" is the same as "ought to be sought" or "ought to be chosen", and that since it makes no sense to say one should seek or choose what one either cannot get or cannot avoid, it follows that it makes no sense to say something one cannot get or cannot avoid is "good". But this simply illustrates why that definition of "good" is wrong. Nor does Rand offer any defense of this assumption (which she doesn&#39;t even explicitly state)--she seems simply not to have noticed that she was assuming it.


Objection (iii):

Premise 3 seems to be false. Rand claimed that living things face an alternative of existing or not existing but that non-living things do not. I can think of five interpretations of this, but all of them make it false:

First, it is not true that non-living things can&#39;t be destroyed. I once saw a house destroyed by flames, for example.

Second, it is true that the matter of which non-living things are composed can&#39;t be destroyed; but this is equally true of living things.

Third, it is not true that a non-living thing&#39;s continued existence never depends on its activities. If my computer ceases to function properly, this may cause me to destroy it.

Fourth, it is not true that positive action is never required to preserve a non-living thing&#39;s existence. A cloud, for instance, must absorb more water in order to continue to exist.

Fifth, it is true that non-living things do not possess free will. But this is equally true of almost all living things, and yet Rand claims that they (including plants, single-celled organisms, etc.) face an "alternative".

Thus, it seems there is no sense in which Rand&#39;s claim is true.


Objection (iv):

Either premise 5 is false, or the argument contains an equivocation. The word "value" has at least two different meanings.

First. Sometimes "value" is used as a verb. In this sense, it means approximately, "to believe to be valuable," or sometimes "to desire". Thus, if I say John values equality, I am saying John thinks equality is good, or that John desires equality. Along the same lines, "value" is sometimes used as a noun, to refer to things which someone &#39;values&#39; in this sense--i.e., things which someone regards as good. Thus, if I say equality is one of John&#39;s &#39;values&#39;, I mean equality is one of the things that John believes is good.

Second. Sometimes "value" is used to refer to things which are good. So if I say, "equality is an important value," I am saying that equality is one of the important goods. Notice the difference, then: the difference between believed to be good and is good. No objectivist can afford to neglect this distinction, since if one does, one will be forced into extreme ethical subjectivism.

If Rand meant "value" in the first sense, then her premise was close to true. (Not exactly, since it is possible to act to gain something even if you don&#39;t believe it to be good, but let&#39;s overlook that.) However, in this case, it has no ethical significance. In particular, the later steps 8 and 9 would not follow, since they claim that life is valuable--that is, good--whereas the premise from which they are derived is about what is valued--that is, held to be good.

If Rand meant "value" in the second sense, then her premise was false. It is perfectly possible, as Rand herself explains later on, for someone to value what is actually bad for them. Nor did she give any argument for thinking that whatever one acts to gain or keep must actually be good.


Objection (v):

Premise 6 is false.

If we read it in a teleological sense, as saying living things have inherent goals or purposes, then it is false because nature is not teleological--Aristotelian physics and biology have long since been refuted. In that sense, living things do not aim at anything (with the exception of conscious beings with intentions).

If we read (6), as Rand suggests (p. 16n), to mean merely that the actions of living things result in the maintenance of their lives, then two problems appear. First, (7) will now be false. There are many things that living things&#39; actions result in. For one thing, their actions result in the reproduction of their genes. For another, animals&#39; actions result in production of body heat.

Second, it would follow, absurdly, that any object whose actions have results, has values. Thus, since when a rock rolls downhill, this results in its having greater kinetic energy, we must conclude that the rock acts to gain and/or keep kinetic energy, and therefore that kinetic energy is a value for the rock.


Objection (vi):

I have included 7, because it is necessary in order to get to 8. But 7 is false, however one reads it. If one interprets it as a claim merely about actual results of action, it is false as discussed above.

If one reads it as an observation about what organisms are evolutionarily &#39;programmed&#39; for (that is, what traits are naturally selected for), it is false because the only trait that is selected for is that of producing more copies of one&#39;s genes. Thus, if anything is the ultimate &#39;value&#39; for living things, it would be gene-reproduction (technically, &#39;inclusive fitness&#39;).

If one reads it as a claim about genuine teleology in nature, it is false because teleological physics is false.

If one reads it as a claim about the purposes or aims of living things, it is false because, for those living things that have purposes, they can often have other purposes. Rand frequently says that many human beings are aiming at self-destruction, for example. It is hard to believe that they are doing this for the sake of promoting their lives.

Consequently, conclusions 8 and 9 are unsupported, and in fact they are false. Many people value happiness or pleasure for its own sake, and not simply for the sake of further prolonging their lives. Rand herself, inconsistently, later declared happiness to be an end in itself. According to her theory, she should have said it was good only because it helped maintain your life.


Objection (vii):

This is probably the most egregious error. Premise 10 begs the question. Rand claimed to have an argument, a proof even, for ethical egoism. Yet 10 is one of the required premises of that &#39;proof&#39;--and 10 essentially just is ethical egoism&#33;

Some will dispute that this is really one of her premises. The reason I say it is is that without 10, the subsequent steps 11 and 13 do not follow. All Rand established up to that point, even if we ignore all the above objections, was that there is one and only one thing that is good for you, and that is your life. But obviously it does not follow that you should only serve your life unless we assume that you should only serve what is good for you. So, if 10 is not included as a premise, then Rand simply has a non sequitur.

Obviously, someone who held a non-egoistic theory--an altruist, say--would respond to the news of 8 and 9 (assuming Rand had demonstrated them) by saying: "Ah, so therefore, we should promote all life" or, "I see, so that means I should serve everyone&#39;s life. Thank you, Miss Rand; I previously thought I should serve other people&#39;s pleasure or desires (or whatever), because I thought that was what was good for them. But now that you&#39;ve convinced me that life is the sole intrinsic value, I see that it was their life that I should have been serving all along." What argument has Rand given against the altruist, then? None.


Objection (viii):

Either 12 is false, or the inference to 13 rests on equivocation.

Rand explains that reason is our basic tool of survival. If her thesis is that any person who is not 100% rational, all the time, will die, then she certainly needs to provide argument for that. There seem to be lots of counter-examples, many of them pointed out by Rand herself.

If her thesis is something weaker, such as that any person who is not by and large rational will probably die, then 12 is plausible. But 13 does not follow. All that would follow would be, e.g., that one should be by and large rational.


3. General arguments against ethical egoism

Rand endorsed a version of &#39;ethical egoism&#39;: the view that a person should always do whatever best serves his own interests. I have discussed the following objections to this doctrine in my "Why I Am Not an Objectivist", so I will be brief here. Here is one general argument against egoism:

1. If ethical egoism is true, then if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

2. It is not the case that, if you could obtain a (net) benefit equal to a dime by torturing and killing 500 people, you should do it.

3. Therefore, egoism is not true.

This argument is very simple, but that should not fool us into thinking it is therefore illegitimate. It is true that an egoist could simply deny 2, proclaiming that in that situation, the mass torture and killing would be morally virtuous. Any person can maintain any belief, provided he is willing to accept enough absurd consequences of it.

Here is a second argument against ethical egoism: it contradicts Rand&#39;s own claim that each individual is an end-in-himself and that it is therefore morally wrong to sacrifice one person to another. For either Rand meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in an absolute sense--as discussed in my objection (i) above; or she meant that an individual life is an end-in-itself in a relative sense--i.e., for that individual.

Assume she meant it in a relative sense. In this case, Smith&#39;s life is an end-in-itself for Smith. But since Smith&#39;s life is not an end-in-itself for Jones, there has been given no reason why Jones should not use Smith or sacrifice Smith&#39;s life for Jones&#39; benefit. In fact, for Jones, Smith&#39;s life can only have value as a means, if it has any value at all, since for Jones, only Jones&#39; life is an end in itself.

Now, assume she meant it in an absolute sense. In that case, she contradicted her agent-relative conception of value. Furthermore, she generated a general problem for ethical egoism. If the life of my neighbor, Jones, is an end-in-itself in an absolute sense, and not just relative to Jones, then why wouldn&#39;t it follow that I ought to promote the life of my neighbor, for its own sake? But this is not what Rand wants--she claims that my own life is the only thing I should promote for its own sake.

http://home.sprynet.com/~owl1/rand5.htm
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by curiouscat9
As a result of all the covert and not so covert action to undermine the constitution, I decided to learn more about running for office and becoming more actively involved and how to influence the law makers.
Too bad that Jew Democrat R. Feingold made this last point harder for the average Joe, but that&#39;s another issue/thread.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by wonderland
I see the right to an abortion as a bigger issue. Take way the right to say what happens to my body and what freedom do I have? The issue for me is where does the government stop controlling my life?
No, you&#39;re making it more difficult than it need be. Your hair, finger nails, are parts of a human being. The fact that the fetus has it&#39;s OWN unique genetic code, separate from yours, separate from that of your hair, uniquely identifies it as a human unto itself, not a piece of another.
 

cruztbone

Experimental Member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Posts
1,283
Media
0
Likes
11
Points
258
Age
71
Location
Capitola CA USA
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
MADAME ZORA HAS THE RIGHT IDEA. There is no place for government ownership of anyone&#39;s body in a democracy(which we still claim we are at the moment-just barely). There is a proposition on the ballot for our
special election in CA on nov. 8 that would require women under the age of 18 notify their parents of the intent to have an abortion. I would hope that Madame Zora and like-minded members of this forum will email their registered voter friends in CA and ask them to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 73. In doing so, CA
will remain true to its personal freedom philosophy in allowing young women the right to decide for themselves in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, without coercion of an incestuous or egocentric parent, or an invasive state bureaucracy.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
First of all, I did not say that I am right because ayn rand said so, I did use her arguments but the reason I did not cite her was because I wanted the argument to stand on its own. You did not address the argument I put forth only an argument against rand, which is fallacious by the way because it does not accurately prtray her argument. It misunderstands all the meanings of all her premises, obviously the author of the argument has not read a lot of her writings and assumed way too much about what she meant by certain things. Yes computers are things, clouds are things, but not in the sense of what she was talking about. A cloud does not care if it continues to exist, neither does a computer or a plant. There can be no values to IT only the the entity which values it. Your computer is a value to you only because of its relation to you, its continued existence to you only matters to you. It is a value to you, not to itself, there is no good or bad to it, only to you, the owner of the computer.

Just because this country has a lot of differing idfeas about existence doesn&#39;;t mean that one does not have the moral authority above all others. It mean there are many wrong ideas, and one or more right ideas if those that are right are consistent with each other. If one person believes that the earth is flat, and another believes it is round, and another believes it is cubical, then only one of them can be right, they can&#39;t all be right. They can all be wrong, but that has to be shown.

I suggest you read more about objectivism before you dismiss it, and learn what it really means instead of just regurgitating straw man arguments from people who don&#39;t understand what they are talkign about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 2 2005, 02&#58;02 PM) [post=357628]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by wonderland
I see the right to an abortion as a bigger issue. Take way the right to say what happens to my body and what freedom do I have? The issue for me is where does the government stop controlling my life?
No, you&#39;re making it more difficult than it need be. Your hair, finger nails, are parts of a human being. The fact that the fetus has it&#39;s OWN unique genetic code, separate from yours, separate from that of your hair, uniquely identifies it as a human unto itself, not a piece of another.
[/b][/quote]
WHat is happeneing to HER body is that it is being used by another against her will. Yes the fetus is a seperate individual, but it does not have the right to leech of another against their will. Would you let anjother person enslave you? Would you argue that it is their right, if they need to enslave you in order to survive?
 

AMikkell

Just Browsing
Joined
Sep 6, 2005
Posts
109
Media
0
Likes
0
Points
161
Location
Upstate New York
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 2 2005, 09&#58;02 AM) [post=357628]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by wonderland
I see the right to an abortion as a bigger issue. Take way the right to say what happens to my body and what freedom do I have? The issue for me is where does the government stop controlling my life?
No, you&#39;re making it more difficult than it need be. Your hair, finger nails, are parts of a human being. The fact that the fetus has it&#39;s OWN unique genetic code, separate from yours, separate from that of your hair, uniquely identifies it as a human unto itself, not a piece of another.
[/b][/quote]

Wouldn&#39;t that train of thought make the fetus simular to a parasite? Don&#39;t people have a choice over whether they keep a parasite attached to themselves? People shouldn&#39;t be forced to keep something else alive. Just as people don&#39;t have to give blood help another person keep alive, they shouldn&#39;t be forced to help keep another person alive in any other form, including pregnancy. Can they choose to do this, certainly, but it shouldn&#39;t be forced upon them.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
First of all, I did not say that I am right because ayn rand said so, I did use her arguments but the reason I did not cite her was because I wanted the argument to stand on its own. You did not address the argument I put forth only an argument against rand, which is fallacious by the way because it does not accurately prtray her argument. It misunderstands all the meanings of all her premises, obviously the author of the argument has not read a lot of her writings and assumed way too much about what she meant by certain things. Yes computers are things, clouds are things, but not in the sense of what she was talking about. A cloud does not care if it continues to exist, neither does a computer or a plant. There can be no values to IT only the the entity which values it. Your computer is a value to you only because of its relation to you, its continued existence to you only matters to you. It is a value to you, not to itself, there is no good or bad to it, only to you, the owner of the computer. Just because this country has a lot of differing idfeas about existence doesn&#39;;t mean that one does not have the moral authority above all others. It mean there are many wrong ideas, and one or more right ideas if those that are right are consistent with each other. If one person believes that the earth is flat, and another believes it is round, and another believes it is cubical, then only one of them can be right, they can&#39;t all be right. They can all be wrong, but that has to be shown. I suggest you read more about objectivism before you dismiss it, and learn what it really means instead of just regurgitating straw man arguments from people who don&#39;t understand what they are talkign about.[/b][/quote]
Oh the irony. Rand couldn&#39;t articulate her views in philosophical prose so she wrote novels in which all her philosophical enemies are straw men. The characters are literally absurd. Also, Rand is a capitalist version of Nietzsche and she equates disagreement with her views with character flaws. i.e. if you don&#39;t agree with her, you&#39;re "anti-life" :eyes (Nietzsche also used this tactic but in a more moderate way; "philosophical systems arise from someone&#39;s character, not their thought.")

Most notorious is her terrible misreading of Kant.

She takes up a shallow (although very common among students) reading of Kant that says that only totally selfless acts are moral. i.e. she attributes to Kant the position that the only moral actions are ones in which we suffer great pain or death in doing so. I.E. a torturer says "tell a lie or I will cut off your fingers" and we still refuse to tell a lie. Now, go and read Kant both in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and in the 2nd Critique you will see that he says something similar, but by no means the same. What Kant says is that the only way we can KNOW FOR SURE that our actions are moral is in such a situation. But he doesn&#39;t leave out the possibility that other actions are moral. He doesn&#39;t say that, when we give money to victims of the hurricane and also derive a good feeling about helping those people, our actions aren&#39;t moral. He just says that we can&#39;t know FOR SURE.

Check out this site for more of the Kant problems:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/

Oh, and I&#39;m familiar with Objectivism. The article is on point. Please forgive me for heavily criticizing a philosophy that is quite popular among young people who read Rand. She should have just stuck to her crappy experiments with prose.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>WHat is happeneing to HER body is that it is being used by another against her will. Yes the fetus is a seperate individual, but it does not have the right to leech of another against their will.[/b][/quote]
It&#39;s understood that you feel this. I disagree. I (or someone) could feel that objectively looking at cell division, and carrying of unique human genetic code, as physical processes are no more or less valuable than that which human&#39;s term consciousness (and no more or less indicative of what it is to be human at the most basic level.) I believe innocent individuals have a right to life. That is where we differ.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Would you let anjother person enslave you? Would you argue that it is their right, if they need to enslave you in order to survive?
[/b][/quote]
Apples and oranges.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Wouldn&#39;t that train of thought make the fetus simular to a parasite?
[/b][/quote]
No. I have some biology lecture notes to leaf through if that&#39;ll help you at all. Let me know if you want them.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne &#064; Nov 3 2005, 12&#58;39 AM) [post=357806]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
First of all, I did not say that I am right because ayn rand said so,
Just because this country has a lot of differing idfeas about existence doesn&#39;;t mean that one does not have the moral authority above all others. It mean there are many wrong ideas, and one or more right ideas if those that are right are consistent with each other. If one person believes that the earth is flat, and another believes it is round, and another believes it is cubical, then only one of them can be right, they can&#39;t all be right. They can all be wrong, but that has to be shown.

I suggest you read more about objectivism before you dismiss it, and learn what it really means instead of just regurgitating straw man arguments from people who don&#39;t understand what they are talkign about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 2 2005, 02&#58;02 PM) [post=357628]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by wonderland
I see the right to an abortion as a bigger issue. Take way the right to say what happens to my body and what freedom do I have? The issue for me is where does the government stop controlling my life?
No, you&#39;re making it more difficult than it need be. Your hair, finger nails, are parts of a human being. The fact that the fetus has it&#39;s OWN unique genetic code, separate from yours, separate from that of your hair, uniquely identifies it as a human unto itself, not a piece of another.
[/b][/quote]
WHat is happeneing to HER body is that it is being used by another against her will. Yes the fetus is a seperate individual, but it does not have the right to leech of another against their will. Would you let anjother person enslave you? Would you argue that it is their right, if they need to enslave you in order to survive?
[/b][/quote]
Gota Big One,

You make some excellent points.

I will point out some clarifications that I believe need to be made.’

True a fetus is a living organism. But it does not think until the 30th week of pregnancy. So is it a human as we think of it before the 30th week? The Constitution also makes it plain that citizens are people BORN in the United States or have been naturalized citizens meaning they took all the tests as adults and took the oath of allegiance to the USA.

Gotta a Big One,

I know you are not religious. However, almost the entire argument against abortion comes from the Catholic Church or the religious right. You don&#39;t hear Methodist, Presbyterians Episcopalians railing against abortion. So my point is that this is really a religious issue where two religious groups Catholic and the Fundies, are trying to force their religious views as the legal law of the land.

And that legal view is that at conception, God gives the new organism a soul right there and then. so even the morning after pill would be the murder of a human being. My wife and I had a miscarriage when the fetus was 12 weeks. I wanted to see the fetus. The nurse explained there was nothing but blood and tissue.

The bottom line is the political group trying to outlaw abortion are not doing so on the basis of the Constitution or English common law. They are doing it on the basis of THEIR undrestanding of the Bible and the beliefs of their church. If you read their documents, they comment over and over "we are going to return our nation to the Christian values of our forefathers." That is a myth because it has only been in the last 100 years that even religious folks believed abortion was wrong. In the 19th century and before, abortion was OK as long as the mother hadn&#39;t felt the baby move. Once the mother or doctor felt the baby move than it was too late for an abortion. Of course they didn&#39;t have the modern equipment we have now.

The problem is we are letting the issue of abortion be decided by religious criteria, not constitutional criteria. Bad mistake. Shall we let the Jehovah&#39;s Witness ban blood transfusions next?

To the doctor:

I don’t&#39; see where you tirade against Objectivism has much to do with abortion since abortion is a religious issue. I don&#39;t know enough to know if I agree or not with all the beliefs of Objectivism proponents or not. I just know that doesn&#39;t seem to relate to abortion to me at all.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by Freddie53


To the doctor:

I don’t&#39; see where you tirade against Objectivism has much to do with abortion since abortion is a religious issue. I don&#39;t know enough to know if I agree or not with all the beliefs of Objectivism proponents or not. I just know that doesn&#39;t seem to relate to abortion to me at all.
If you&#39;re pro-life for unborn babies, you&#39;re "anti-life" according to Objectivist philosophy. It was in response to post #17, which is a re-stating of what Objectivism is. I didn&#39;t bring it up, sweetheart. My problems with Rand are multi-faceted, but the biggest thing that gets on my nerves is that most of her argument is based on flawed logic, as seen so clearly in the article quoted above. Her epistemology of direct realism is laughable. Rand believes we can attain complete objectivity (i.e. she just denies the fundamental problems of epistemology that have been around since Descartes).

And again, abortion is a moral issue, not explicitly a religious one. You can be agnostic and still be against abortion.
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by cruztbone

MADAME ZORA HAS THE RIGHT IDEA. There is no place for government ownership of anyone&#39;s body in a democracy(which we still claim we are at the moment-just barely). There is a proposition on the ballot for our
special election in CA on nov. 8 that would require women under the age of 18 notify their parents of the intent to have an abortion. I would hope that Madame Zora and like-minded members of this forum will email their registered voter friends in CA and ask them to VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION 73. In doing so, CA
will remain true to its personal freedom philosophy in allowing young women the right to decide for themselves in deciding whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, without coercion of an incestuous or egocentric parent, or an invasive state bureaucracy.
<
I think if you have to get your parent&#39;s signature to go on a school field trip to the planetarium I don&#39;t see the big issue with letting a parent know when their child is going to make a life-altering decision.
<
@ "without coercion of an incestuous or egocentric parent." I guess getting an abortion should be equivalent to getting a library card, especially for a minor.
 

Freddie53

Superior Member
Gold
Joined
Nov 19, 2004
Posts
5,842
Media
0
Likes
2,609
Points
333
Location
Memphis (Tennessee, United States)
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 3 2005, 04&#58;55 AM) [post=357850]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by Freddie53


To the doctor:

I don’t&#39; see where you tirade against Objectivism has much to do with abortion since abortion is a religious issue. I don&#39;t know enough to know if I agree or not with all the beliefs of Objectivism proponents or not. I just know that doesn&#39;t seem to relate to abortion to me at all.
If you&#39;re pro-life for unborn babies, you&#39;re "anti-life" according to Objectivist philosophy. It was in response to post #17, which is a re-stating of what Objectivism is. I didn&#39;t bring it up, sweetheart. My problems with Rand are multi-faceted, but the biggest thing that gets on my nerves is that most of her argument is based on flawed logic, as seen so clearly in the article quoted above. Her epistemology of direct realism is laughable. Rand believes we can attain complete objectivity (i.e. she just denies the fundamental problems of epistemology that have been around since Descartes).

And again, abortion is a moral issue, not explicitly a religious one. You can be agnostic and still be against abortion.
[/b][/quote]
Calling me sweatheart now&#33; We are now debating the issue without hostile emotions. Thank you very much.

Now to your points about Objectivism. As I recall Miss Rand was not around when the Constitution was written. I will admit that I am totally ignorant of the woman and her philosophies. But then I don&#39;t care as I don&#39;t see her as revelent in this case.

Yes I see your point that abortion is a moral issue, not just a religious issue. So is drinking, being a vegetarian and a lot of other things.

So, I am not arguing for pro abortion. I am arguing for complete freedom of women to have control over thier bodies. But I feel that way about the end of life as well. I am not for deliberately killing a person who is terminal. But it is between the doctor, patient and family what care to give in thoee final hours. The government should stay out of it.

That is the way I feel about abortion. I just don&#39;t think the government should be involved. Doesn&#39;t mean I like abortion. I just don&#39;t like the fundies using specific religious beliefs to be against abortion.

Your arguemenjts are more plausable since you don&#39;t use religion as your basis for your position as I recall. We have all written so much now, who knows what each of us have written now for sure.

We all have learned through this discussoin. We might not have changed minds of people, but we all know more than we did before. At least that part has been good for all of us.

And the silent readers may have gained the most helping them make up for their own minds what to believe after hearing debate on both sides.

Freddie
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by Freddie53

Now to your points about Objectivism. As I recall Miss Rand was not around when the Constitution was written. I will admit that I am totally ignorant of the woman and her philosophies. But then I don&#39;t care as I don&#39;t see her as revelent in this case.

Yes I see your point that abortion is a moral issue, not just a religious issue. So is drinking, being a vegetarian and a lot of other things.

So, I am not arguing for pro abortion. I am arguing for complete freedom of women to have control over thier bodies. But I feel that way about the end of life as well. I am not for deliberately killing a person who is terminal. But it is between the doctor, patient and family what care to give in thoee final hours. The government should stay out of it.

That is the way I feel about abortion. I just don&#39;t think the government should be involved. Doesn&#39;t mean I like abortion. I just don&#39;t like the fundies using specific religious beliefs to be against abortion.

Your arguemenjts are more plausable since you don&#39;t use religion as your basis for your position as I recall. We have all written so much now, who knows what each of us have written now for sure.

We all have learned through this discussoin. We might not have changed minds of people, but we all know more than we did before. At least that part has been good for all of us.

And the silent readers may have gained the most helping them make up for their own minds what to believe after hearing debate on both sides.

Freddie
Yeah, part of me would like a few hours of my life back, haha. I think moderation is the best policy, i.e. there may be different avenues towards the truth and the truth itself might be multivalent (especially in the case of abortion), but it kicks back at us if we&#39;re drastically wrong. i.e. we may not be able to tell whether theory a, b, or c accurately describes reality 100% since they all have plausibility, but we CAN rule out absurd theory D. And in this case, Objectivism is theory D. I&#39;m not going to waste my time anymore dealing with a pseudo-intellectual Randroid who latches on to Objectivism in order to avoid any more serious thought. His portrayal of abortion as the most clear-cut moral issue of our time is bullshit and only true of people unwilling to engage in critical thinking over platitudes.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
Dilznick, like i said I suggest you read more about objectivism from the source before you make assumptions about what it is. Everything you&#39;ve said about it thus far has been false, and it reveals a weak mind not able to grasp the complicated concepts involved. All you have done is attack me, not my arguments, and you didn&#39;t even use your own ideas, you merely regurgitated another person&#39;s mistaken views on objectivism.
So I&#39;m a randroid huh????
I Don&#39;t have to balls to think on my own?????
Why don&#39;t you remove the plank from your own eye before you start criticising the alleged speck in mine.

Also dilz.
Slavery and forced gestation of a fetus are not apples and oranges. This is not my opinion because I will now explain why it isn&#39;t.
Lets say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well. So we have two individuals. One of the individuals wishes to live, but can only live by sucking the blood from the other. The woman does not want to fetus to, she wants to not be pregnant. You say that it is the fetuses right to be fed by the woman, you are basically saying that fetus has a right to her blood, that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live. Blood is one of the most fundemental things that a person can own, it is their body, it is theirs. You say that one person has aright to another person&#39;s body based on their need, and that the other person has no right to their own body because they are not the one in need. the ultimate expression of one&#39;s body is what one does with their body, their work. Slavery as it is copmmonly understood is one person having the right of ownership of another person&#39;s body, and the fruit of another person&#39;s labor. Slavery is ownership of another persons body, the thought that one person can have the right to another person&#39;s body. Can you now see the correlation, or are you too thickheaded to think on your ownj as you accused me of doing????
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by GottaBigOne

Lets say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well. So we have two individuals. One of the individuals wishes to live, but can only live by sucking the blood from the other. The woman does not want to fetus to, she wants to not be pregnant. You say that it is the fetuses right to be fed by the woman, you are basically saying that fetus has a right to her blood.
In my opinion, yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live.[/b][/quote]
Nice logical jump there sans the necessary middle term.
<
So no, that&#39;s not at all what I was saying.
 

GottaBigOne

Cherished Member
Joined
Feb 7, 2004
Posts
1,035
Media
13
Likes
255
Points
303
Age
42
Location
Dallas (Texas, United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick &#064; Nov 3 2005, 09&#58;53 PM) [post=358015]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Originally posted by GottaBigOne

Lets say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well. So we have two individuals. One of the individuals wishes to live, but can only live by sucking the blood from the other. The woman does not want to fetus to, she wants to not be pregnant. You say that it is the fetuses right to be fed by the woman, you are basically saying that fetus has a right to her blood.
In my opinion, yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live.[/b][/quote]
Nice logical jump there sans the necessary middle term.
<
So no, that&#39;s not at all what I was saying.
[/b][/quote]
ummm, do you notice that the first part where you say "in my opinion, yes" and the second part where you say that that wasn&#39;t what you were saying are contradictory???

But anway, so its your opinion that a baby has a right to the womans blood, do you care to give reasons why or is it just something you decided arbitrarily??
 

Dr. Dilznick

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Posts
1,640
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
183
Age
46
Sexuality
No Response
Originally posted by GottaBigOne&#39;

ummm, do you notice that the first part where you say "in my opinion, yes" and the second part where you say that that wasn&#39;t what you were saying are contradictory???
A fetus doesn&#39;t = any person.

I&#39;ll reply in more depth later.