Abortion -vs- Murder

[Tenspace]

veritas wrote

God has a plan for our lives, but it is our choice whether or no to follow the plan that God has for us. It is not God's will for us to disobey Him. We choose to go against His will. It is so important for people to understand that we are not God's little puppets. We are His creation. We have the ability to choose God, or reject Him. God's will is not for us to reject Him. That is our will influenced by selfishness and other things of the world.

Veritas, I really respect you, and I am glad that religion brings you peace, but I have to say for the benefit (or detriment) of others, that this is the result of years of being brainwashed, programmed, by religion. ::ducking:: ;)

Ten

Tenspace wrote

Veritas, I really respect you, and I am glad that religion brings you peace, but I have to say for the benefit (or detriment) of others, that this is the result of years of being brainwashed, programmed, by religion. ::ducking:: ;)

Ten

Now Ten, who's to say that I've been brainwashed anymore than you have. You have to look at it from both points of view. Now from your point of view, there is no God, and I've simply been brainwashed to believe that I should live my life according to an old book with a bunch of rules and witty sayings. Now from my point of view, there is a God, and you've been brainwashed by the world to believe that you can live your life however you please and there will be no repercussins, making you, in a sense your own God.

So either I've been brainwashed by an elaborate scheme to give people hope and a reason to live their lives morally and ethically, or you've been brainwashed by a world who tells people that there is no God, and that humanity has the power to be their own God, and create their own morals, with their own knowledge.

I don't know about you, but if I was the devil, I think I'd milk that second scenario for all it was worth. I mean look at Adam and Eve. It worked on them and it's still working today. What better way to turn people from the Lord, than give them the idea that they don't need God, that they can be their own God. Make people think that they have all of the answers to all of the problems and the need for God goes away. In our society today we see little need for God in all of it. We have what we want, we can get what we need, and all the rest are just dreams and details.

A man lost in the desert, no matter what he believes will eventually ask God for help, whether skeptically or with all of his heart. A man in front of a computer in his air-conditioned home will not. He sees no reason to.


"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

[Tenspace]

veritas wrote

Now from your point of view, there is no God, and I've simply been brainwashed to believe that I should live my life according to an old book with a bunch of rules and witty sayings.

Agreed.

Now from my point of view, there is a God, and you've been brainwashed by the world to believe that you can live your life however you please and there will be no repercussins, making you, in a sense your own God.

I disagree with the statement that I can live my life without repercussion. I don't need to know that God thinks it's wrong for me to steal. I know it's wrong. There are repercussions to every decision we make. Every action or inaction alters an individual's future history.

So either I've been brainwashed by an elaborate scheme to give people hope and a reason to live their lives morally and ethically,

Unfortunately, you are in tne minority. Most of the faithful I know abuse what you use to live morally and ethically. Look at Dr. James Dobson, for an
extreme example. To me, he is the majority, threatening the very existence of humanity. I would have no argument with the religious if everyone were as rational as you.

or you've been brainwashed by a world who tells people that there is no God, and that humanity has the power to be their own God, and create their own morals, with their own knowledge.

Agreed. Except the brainwashed part. I think that humanity has the power to chart a peaceful course for the reproduction and expansion of its population. We have been creating our morals for millenia, long before we even had the ability to comprehend the self. I don't think we'll be able to expand our population off this planet without leaving behind the things that make us fight among ourselves, though.

I don't know about you, but if I was the devil, I think I'd milk that second scenario for all it was worth. I mean look at Adam and Eve. It worked on them and it's still working today. What better way to turn people from the Lord, than give them the idea that they don't need God, that they can be their own God. Make people think that they have all of the answers to all of the problems and the need for God goes away. In our society today we see little need for God in all of it. We have what we want, we can get what we need, and all the rest are just dreams and details.

Here's what I have a problem with. I guess if the world demands that I have a label, call me a foundationalist. I believe that if the foundation of the argument's logic is in question, then you cannot argue the finer points rationally. In other words, your comment, "look at Adam and Eve" means nothing to me, because I don't consider that anything more than a fairy tale. To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing, which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction. I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.

A man lost in the desert, no matter what he believes will eventually ask God for help, whether skeptically or with all of his heart. A man in front of a computer in his air-conditioned home will not. He sees no reason to.

I've been to the desert, veritas. I've asked God for help. The lack of any visible, measurable, usable result of my faith has left me free of religion. Your comment is the equivalent of saying that there are no atheists in foxholes. But that's wrong. There's plenty. I'd rather have an atheist in a foxhole with me, because at least he isn't going to turn to some fictitious god for help. He's going to fight with everything he has, and not rely on the supernatural.

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.

Ten

Tenspace wrote

Here's what I have a problem with. I guess if the world demands that I have a label, call me a foundationalist. I believe that if the foundation of the argument's logic is in question, then you cannot argue the finer points rationally. In other words, your comment, "look at Adam and Eve" means nothing to me, because I don't consider that anything more than a fairy tale. To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing, which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction. I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.

Founationalist huh? Sounds like someone who has no tolerance for anything other than what he/she thinks is true. Seems pretty closed minded. I like to keep an open one, but hey suit yourself.
Speaking of foundations, have you heard the song about the wise man who built his house upon the rock? Its a catchy little tune. Kinda makes you think twice about where you lay your foundation.
Sorry if I'm a little snippy, but you just seem to be trying to take an easy way out. If this forum took a foundationalist approach then nothing could be discussed, and I've seen you argue against biblical theories. So you could have just pointed out the flaws in my argument or said "yes that would be valid if the Bible is true".

To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,

Yes. Definitely 100% yes. Bro, rejecting God is one thing, causing others to reject Him also....Wow. Definitely wouldn't want to have to answer to God on judgment day about that.

which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.

sometimes yes, sometimes no. I definitely never said this so I don't know what you're trying to fabricate here.

I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.

Umm, yeah I don't now how you could comment on that either, since I didn't say it! Ten, I really don't like when people twist my words. I have more respect for you than that. Please reread the section you are referring to. It is just an observation that relates the desire of power that Adam and Eve had, with the desire for power that is evident in our world today.


"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

Out of curiousity, which bible version is that from? Closest I could come up with was this for Prov 18:12: Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour humility. (KJV) That's an interesting translation.

Ten

The verse is an NIV translation, but I really don't see what you are getting at. Both versions say the exact same thing: Pride will lead to a mans destruction, but if he is humble he will be honored.

[Tenspace]

veritas wrote

Founationalist huh? Sounds like someone who has no tolerance for anything other than what he/she thinks is true. Seems pretty closed minded. I like to keep an open one, but hey suit yourself.

Maybe you're right - I don't have tolerance for someone else's opinion or fabrication of what they call truth, which is my main beef with religion. Why do I think my truth is "true"? Because I refer to objective reality only, what you can see, feel, touch, hear and smell. No more. Here's the difference between us: If I say, "there is no god", then you say that's just my opinion and your belief is true, whereas I would say, prove the existence of a supernatural being and you'll make me a believer. Immediately and unconditionally. If you say, "there is no quantization at planck scales", then I would say prove it, because it is more than opinion to turn your back on a reality which can be proven. How is that closed minded? Also, I think my brief legacy here would show that I don't come across closed-minded.

Speaking of foundations, have you heard the song about the wise man who built his house upon the rock? Its a catchy little tune. Kinda makes you think twice about where you lay your foundation.

I'd think a foundation built on rock would be stronger than one built on puffy clouds in heaven. Don't mean to snip, but do you really think I'm that shallow?

Sorry if I'm a little snippy, but you just seem to be trying to take an easy way out. If this forum took a foundationalist approach then nothing could be discussed, and I've seen you argue against biblical theories. So you could have just pointed out the flaws in my argument or said "yes that would be valid if the Bible is true".

I've pointed that out several times. My intent on this posting was to point it out again, that people can apply the concept of the Lord to daily life and expect it to be accepted as a rational answer. If I wanted to take the easy way out, then I wouldn't even be posting here. I spent two hours answering posts last night instead of sleeping, and I'm about to walk into a meeting at work. Trust me, the amount of posting I've done in the short time of being a member here ain't easy.

To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,

Yes. Definitely 100% yes. Bro, rejecting God is one thing, causing others to reject Him also....Wow. Definitely wouldn't want to have to answer to God on judgment day about that.

Okay, then change seats across the table with me. I can understand how you feel, because I have been there (although as a Jew, I was not a proselytizer). Can you not see from my viewpoint that helping people discover the world outside of religion is important?

which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.

sometimes yes, sometimes no. I definitely never said this so I don't know what you're trying to fabricate here.

Then help me out. Why is it bad to turn from your Lord, if the only recourse is in the afterlife?

I can't even comment on that, because I don't believe that belief in the Lord is necessary to be a respected, fair, honest human. I'm sure our definition of morality differs too. I've gone into my moral foundations in other posts.

Umm, yeah I don't now how you could comment on that either, since I didn't say it! Ten, I really don't like when people twist my words. I have more respect for you than that. Please reread the section you are referring to. It is just an observation that relates the desire of power that Adam and Eve had, with the desire for power that is evident in our world today.

Bill Gates did it! My cut/paste is twisting words. :)

Seriously, tell me how you think I twisted your words, because I don't see it. Help me understand.

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

The verse is an NIV translation, but I really don't see what you are getting at. Both versions say the exact same thing: Pride will lead to a mans destruction, but if he is humble he will be honored.

NutritionGuy, jump in if you want, but I see a strong difference in the meaning between, "Before destruction", and "Before his downfall", as well as haughty and proud. I know what haughty means, and maybe that's another issue I have with religion. I agree that being obscenely proud (aka haughty) is not how to get along well with others, but showing pride in yourself, your family, and your daily actions isn't a bad thing, when you don't go acting like a showoff, or using it to impress just for personal gain. Just like sex, pride isn't necessarily a bad thing, but religion deems it to be.

Ten

veritas wrote

God has a plan for our lives, but it is our choice whether or no to follow the plan that God has for us. It is not God's will for us to disobey Him. We choose to go against His will. It is so important for people to understand that we are not God's little puppets. We are His creation. We have the ability to choose God, or reject Him. God's will is not for us to reject Him. That is our will influenced by selfishness and other things of the world.

It's very easy to sit back and say, "Hey it's not my fault, God made me do it!" But God didn't. We chose to do it. Everything is our choice. God sometimes helps us make these decisions, but He never forces us to. God may know what is going to happen, but our choices are what made it happen.

Shut up. No really, I cant take your babblings, that say the same thing over and over, much longer...plus, this shows me that you do understand what I was talking about in the other thread.

Edit:This thread.

Cant you just accept that people make choices with or without your supposed 'God'?

Tenspace wrote

Maybe you're right - I don't have tolerance for someone else's opinion or fabrication of what they call truth, which is my main beef with religion. Why do I think my truth is "true"? Because I refer to objective reality only, what you can see, feel, touch, hear and smell. No more. Here's the difference between us: If I say, "there is no god", then you say that's just my opinion and your belief is true, whereas I would say, prove the existence of a supernatural being and you'll make me a believer. Immediately and unconditionally. If you say, "there is no quantization at planck scales", then I would say prove it, because it is more than opinion to turn your back on a reality which can be proven. How is that closed minded? Also, I think my brief legacy here would show that I don't come across closed-minded.

Ten, prove to me that there is no God and I will concede my belief immediately and unconditionally. What value does the accuracy of science have to conclude that there is no God. What is to say that He did not create the universe in a perfect equilibrium that allows us to recognize fundamental principles and laws that all seem to fit together in harmony? Why would God create a world that is not physically agreeable?

I'd think a foundation built on rock would be stronger than one built on puffy clouds in heaven. Don't mean to snip, but do you really think I'm that shallow?

The rhyme is referring metaphorically to the ephemeral nature of the things in this world in contrast to the eternal nature of a life bulit on God.

Tenspace wrote

Seriously, tell me how you think I twisted your words, because I don't see it. Help me understand.

Right here.

To you, turning people from the Lord is a bad thing,which leads to amoral actions and lack of moral direction.

Ten, where did i say this. Even though I agree with the first part, I simply never said that turning from the Lord leads to amoral actions and a lack of moral direction.

Okay, then change seats across the table with me. I can understand how you feel, because I have been there (although as a Jew, I was not a proselytizer). Can you not see from my viewpoint that helping people discover the world outside of religion is important?

I don't see how religion can hinder one's experience of the world. This is basically a critique of christian morality, whats right and wrong. What is it that you think people who have religion are not experiencing that they should be? Specifically. Freedom to do what?

"Before his downfall a man's heart is proud,

but humility comes before honor."

Proverbs 18:12

NutritionGuy, jump in if you want, but I see a strong difference in the meaning between, "Before destruction", and "Before his downfall", as well as haughty and proud. I know what haughty means, and maybe that's another issue I have with religion. I agree that being obscenely proud (aka haughty) is not how to get along well with others, but showing pride in yourself, your family, and your daily actions isn't a bad thing, when you don't go acting like a showoff, or using it to impress just for personal gain. Just like sex, pride isn't necessarily a bad thing, but religion deems it to be.

Ten

I see what you mean in the difference between haughty and prideful. I think that I like the KJV better because it is easier to see what the core of the verse is meant to say.

[Tenspace]

veritas wrote

Ten, prove to me that there is no God and I will concede my belief immediately and unconditionally.

Are you willing to invest the time it takes for this? It took me five years of study before I could comprehend the natural world. I would sincerely work with you if you wish to spend some extended time learning about the different facets of reality.

What value does the accuracy of science have to conclude that there is no God.

It is quite irrelevent to science whether or not there is a god. It is important to believers to see where science stands, when science says, "we stand nowhere."

What is to say that He did not create the universe in a perfect equilibrium that allows us to recognize fundamental principles and laws that all seem to fit together in harmony? Why would God create a world that is not physically agreeable?

Because the original, incontrovertible truth isn't so true now. Every year there are new scientific challenges to the old texts. It's only been eight generations since we were shitting in a hole and reading by candlelight. I think we've done pretty good so far. Adding God to the equation isn't necessary to explain anything.

Ten, where did i say this. Even though I agree with the first part, I simply never said that turning from the Lord leads to amoral actions and a lack of moral direction.

Then what does it lead to? My you was a bit collective, a generalization of christians. Sorry if I offended. But it is the worldview of the population of Christianity, right?

I don't see how religion can hinder one's experience of the world. This is basically a critique of christian morality, whats right and wrong.

Intelligent design is a good example. It is not a correct scientific worldview, and by teaching it to are children we are bankrupting all of what science stands for. That's a hinderence of populational growth for humanity. The mindset, "don't question the bible" has set us back hundreds of years in scientific progress. And I'm not singling out "christian morality", right or wrong. Christianity doesn't hold exclusives to morality.

What is it that you think people who have religion are not experiencing that they should be? Specifically. Freedom to do what?

What's freedom got to do with it? We all have the freedom right now to increase our knowledge about reality, but no one is doing it, in this country anyway. Deep reality is a lot stranger than any of the god stories. It's the learning that should be experienced. Learning without applying a bible-filter to knowledge.

I see what you mean in the difference between haughty and prideful. I think that I like the KJV better because it is easier to see what the core of the verse is meant to say.

I'm even considering brushing up on my Hebrew so I can read some of the more ancient texts. Our linguistic history traces a path through time much like evolution. :)

Tenspace

A rational case for abortion:

Just thought I’d add a few not-often-heard-of arguments in favor of abortion…and hopefully bring the thread back to its original topic.

Ayn Rand wrote

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn).
Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body.
“Of Living Death”, 1968.

Ayn Rand wrote

Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life”. A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with and actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable…Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e.; the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose it’s termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.
“A Last Survey”.

Ayn Rand wrote

If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix—and cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is NOT the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth.
The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it Is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse.
I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is certainly what they project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hared for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life”.
By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?
“The Age of Mediocrity”, 1981.

Ayn Rand wrote

A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid.

and...

Leonard Peikoff on the subject of abortion.

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth. Before three months, the unborn is "developing" and only "potential" for human life, while sometime after that the "actual" life starts. It's funny to see the "rational animal" bit thrown in there. A 2 year old is not rational. Some 40 year olds aren't rational, but they still have a right to life. Here's another arbitrary line one could draw:
Human life begins during puberty. Before that, the human is only developing, and can't do anything to further the species. Wait, our brains are still developing at least until 25. Maybe that's when human life begins. Wow, I guess my life began last year.

Another funny part of the argument is how parenting requires such responsibility that it shouldn't be forced on anyone. I shall reply that sexual activity is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be forced on anyone, nor taken lightly. Ayn doesn't seem to think that sexual activity should be such a huge responsibility. It would be nice if cheesecake didn't make people fat too, but that's the nature of the beast; eat responsibly.

For me, the only non-arbitrary time to draw a line between life and the potential for life is when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A sperm alone has not started developing into a human, nor an egg alone. Once that development starts, I don't think it makes sense to draw lines at 3 months, or 9 months, or 12 months, or 12 years, or 25 years. I don't accept Ayn's definitions, and that is really all there is to that argument.

StillSurviving, I apologize for the rather long delay concerning this reply. I’ve been quite busy these past few days with school, and I couldn’t more than a single post a day. I also haven’t read the entirety of this thread, so if it happens that you guys have advanced some arguments that I haven’t seen, I apologize in advance for the repetitions.
With that said, let’s see what you have to say.

SS wrote

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth.

Personally, I wouldn’t draw any such difference--and I don't believe Any Rand does either. But really that’s not the crux of her argument—which you wisely chose to ignore, or maybe did not understand. And just to make things clear, she did not say that abortion is somehow wrong after three months. She just said that one could argue about it. But that’s a mere ‘border-line case’. Less than 1% of abortions happen in the later terms—and most of them, due to complications, either with the developing fetus itself, or the mother.

I do not understand the last part of your sentence. [“…and also at birth.]<<<Where did you get that, and what exactly do you mean?

SS wrote

Before three months, the unborn is "developing" and only "potential" for human life, while sometime after that the "actual" life starts.

Nowhere did she say such a thing. That’s your own [mis]interpretation.

SS wrote

It's funny to see the "rational animal" bit thrown in there.

Funny? Please explain. And frankly, I do not follow which part it is you are trying to ridicule.

SS wrote

A 2 year old is not rational. Some 40 year olds aren't rational, but they still have a right to life..

Well this stems from your ignorance of the Objectivist theory of rights—which I, nor anyone else, can explain to you in a single post.
A two year old does have rights, but it happens to be that he is impotent to defend them, which is why his rights are guarded by his parents/guardian, until he is of appropriate age to defend them himself. Also remember that he is a separate, independent entity, not feeding off the bodies of others, i.e.; not a parasite.

The philosophical definition of man (originated by Aristotle) does not mean that all human beings are automatically rational. Reason is not a mechanical, robotic process, and logical connections are not automatic. It’s all a matter of choice, which all normal human beings are capable of. [Reason is not a capacity somehow exclusively reserved to ‘SuperMen’]. A 40 year old has the right to life just as a two year old—but in this case he is old enough to mend for himself. It is up to him if he wishes to be rational or not—you can’t force people to use their own eyes. If he defaults on irrationality, in a free society, he will be his own destroyer, and he’ll bring no one down with him—reality does not forgive self-induced stupidity.

SS wrote

Human life begins during puberty. Before that, the human is only developing, and can't do anything to further the species. Wait, our brains are still developing at least until 25. Maybe that's when human life begins. Wow, I guess my life began last year.

!!!!!!!!!
“...Human life begins at BIRTH.” Ayn Rand. Why don’t you re-read the quotes again. And try not to skim.

SS wrote

Another funny part of the argument is how parenting requires such responsibility that it shouldn't be forced on anyone.

Please show me where you see the humor.

SS wrote

I shall reply that sexual activity is a huge responsibility that shouldn't be forced on anyone, nor taken lightly.

I’ll do you one better than that: “I would say that a selective and discriminate sex life is not an indulgence. The term indulgence implies that it is an action taken lightly and casually. I say that sex is one of the most important aspects of man's life and, therefore, must never be approached lightly or casually. A sexual relationship is proper only on the ground of the highest values one can find in a human being. Sex must not be anything other than a response to values. And that is why I consider promiscuity immoral. Not because sex is evil, but because sex is too good and too important.” Ayn Rand, Playboy Interview.

SS wrote

Ayn doesn't seem to think that sexual activity should be such a huge responsibility.

Hmmm…, I suggest you check that.

SS wrote

It would be nice if cheesecake didn't make people fat too, but that's the nature of the beast; eat responsibly.

Fine. I will follow you on that equivocation: “Cheesecake makes people fat, and as people don’t have rights to their own bodies, and have no idea what is good for them [i.e.: they are irrational], therefore we should legislate how much cheese people are to it, how they should eat it, and when—just as it is proposed with the cases of sex and abortion.”

SS wrote

For me, the only non-arbitrary time to draw a line between life and the potential for life is when a sperm fertilizes an egg. A sperm alone has not started developing into a human, nor an egg alone. Once that development starts, I don't think it makes sense to draw lines at 3 months, or 9 months, or 12 months, or 12 years, or 25 years.

Well, you have yet to show what is arbitrary in Ayn Rand’s argument—and I’d suggest that you don’t jump into hasty generalizations. Now if you want to define a cluster of cells as a human being, then go right ahead--just be precise. [Unborn child is a contradiction in terms.] This non-argument is already answered anyway—you are equating a potential with an actual. And a guest has no claim on its host.

And please, do listen to the audio stream.

SS wrote

I don't accept Ayn's definitions, and that is really all there is to that argument.

That’s not the way to dismiss an argument.

VOICE-of-REASON, maybe you should re-read my original post, because Ayn doesn't bring anything logical to the table that wasn't covered. There are some completely pointless statements, and some arbitrary attempts at defining stages of human development as actual life, or potential for life.

"An embryo has no rights" -Ayn

No one is saying embryos currently have rights. They have rights if we chose to give them rights. This statement is thus either pointless, or used to confuse the issue. Straw man anyone?

"Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being." -Ayn

And where does one draw the line between potential and actual, and for what reason?

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." -Ayn

Here the line is drawn at birth. However, I do not find it logical to draw the line there, as the child is basically unchanged during birth. It is no more developed an hour after birth than an hour before birth.

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." -Ayn

Abortion ends a life. That life should be allowed to grow to persue happiness.

"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a “right to life”. A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with and actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former is unspeakable…" -Ayn

I don't see an embryo in the early stages as potential life, but as developing life. We develop our entire lives. All there is here is a baseless attack on people with differing opinions, and rehashing of the arbitrary "potential" and "actual" terms, which I never agreed with in the first place.

"Observe that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e.; the nonliving, the anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals" -Ayn

I am all for taking away the right to abortion (murder) for the sake of protecting the lives of the unborn, no matter what verbage is used. Also, unless someone is raped, I don't see how they can claim that a child is forced on them.

"For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose it’s termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." -Ayn

The reason to make abortion illegal is to protect the life of the unborn. It is directly for their benefit. I can predict that people will say the child may suffer, but then they should really be discussing the issue of whether we have the right to end the life of someone suffering, not abortion.

"If any among you are confused or taken in by the argument that the cells of an embryo are living human cells, remember that so are all the cells of your body, including the cells of your skin, your tonsils, or your ruptured appendix" -Ayn

Right. The cells of the embryo are living human cells, but more than that, they are developing into a human adult. Your tonsils, skin, and appendix are not.

"—and cutting them is murder, according to the notions of that proposed law. Remember also that a potentiality is NOT the equivalent of an actuality—and that a human being’s life begins at birth." -Ayn

I don't know what law is being reference here. I do see again the use of the arbitrary terms potential and actual, the definition of which I never agreed with.

"The question of abortion involves much more than the termination of a pregnancy: it Is a question of the entire life of the parents. As I have said before, parenthood is an enormous responsibility; it is an impossible responsibility for young people who are ambitious and struggling, but poor; particularly if they are intelligent and conscientious enough not to abandon their child on a doorstep nor to surrender it to adoption. For such young people, pregnancy is a death sentence: parenthood would force them to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s physical and financial needs. The situation of an unwed mother, abandoned by her lover, is even worse."

An erroneaous appeal to consequences. If someone thinks having a child would ruin their lives, I suggest they take every precaution not to start a child of their own developing. Part of this argument could be applied to child support laws, however, men don't have an out for child support, and we wouldn't even have to end a life to give them an out. Somehow society has no problem telling men who get women pregnant "to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s ... financial needs."

"I cannot imagine the state of mind of a person who would wish to condemn a fellow human being to such a horror. I cannot project the degree of hatred required to make those women run around in crusades against abortion. Hatred is certainly what they project, not love for the embryos, which is a piece of nonsense no one could experience, but hatred, a virulent hared for an unnamed object. Judging by the degree of those women’s intensity, I would say that it is an issue of self-esteem and that their fear is metaphysical. Their hatred is directed against human beings as such, against the mind, against reason, against success, against love, against any value that brings happiness to human life. In compliance with the dishonesty that dominates today’s intellectual field, they call themselves “pro-life”." -Ayn

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible for another. At any rate, this is stereotyping of the reasons for arguing to make abortion illegal, not against the arguments themselves, so I don't feel the need to respond further.

"By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?" -Ayn

The same right any society holds over those who choose to break the laws they have enacted. Is this an argument against abortion or against society itself?

"A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid."

As I have pointed out, we don't only protect those that are able to prove their rationality. If this is an argument that we should define and protect life when it can demonstrate reason, we can discuss that, but it really has nothing to do with abortion.

SS, so you chose to totally ignore my post to rehash the same bromides that I already refuted? I’m starting to understand why.

SS wrote

maybe you should re-read my original post, because Ayn doesn't bring anything logical to the table that wasn't covered.

I wouldn’t advise that you abuse both my civility and honesty.

SS wrote

There are some completely pointless statements, and some arbitrary attempts at defining stages of human development as actual life, or potential for life.

YOU have yet to show what is arbitrary about this argument, and once again, just repeating the same thing a million times won’t make it so.
Had you actually READ the argument, you’d understand that no line is being drawn between potential and actual life, but between potential and actual HUMAN BEING. Of course the cells inside a woman’s stomach (as compared to the other individual cells of her body) are ‘alive’, but they do not form a HUMAN BEING.

SS wrote

"An embryo has no rights" -Ayn

No one is saying embryos currently have rights. They have rights if we chose to give them rights. This statement is thus either pointless, or used to confuse the issue. Straw man anyone?

If an embryo has no rights, then where/what is your problem?
Do you really think that spouting protests against alleged logical fallacies will make them magically appear in your opponent’s argument?

“They have rights IF we(who?) give them rights”???!!!??? Then how on earth could that be a RIGHT? Rights are not given, they are absolute. It’s permissions and privileges that are given.
If you did things only because people ALLOWED you to do it [and they could disallow it at any time], then what you have is not a RIGHT, but a PERMISSION…or an unjust privilege.

Now, if you wish to destroy the women’s RIGHTS to their own bodies, by PERMITTING clusters of cells to live parasitically and unwillingly inside of them, then say it straight—and cut the crap with the euphemisms. It’s cowardly. And then explain to me by what right would you have the right to do such a thing—which is of course a tricky business, as there cannot be such a thing as ‘the right to destroy the source of rights’.

SS wrote

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not yet living (or the unborn)." -Ayn

Here the line is drawn at birth. However, I do not find it logical to draw the line there, as the child is basically unchanged during birth. It is no more developed an hour after birth than an hour before birth.

hmm…and ‘an hour AFTER birth’, and ‘an hour BEFORE birth’ are the SAME thing. Interesting—as the state of the baby has not changed at all during that TIME.

SS wrote

"Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered." -Ayn

Abortion ends a life. That life should be allowed to grow to persue happiness.

Wow!! What a bigot. This is exactly what self-righteous sounds like. You must be both death and blind to what you’re saying. “Happiness”? You don’t care about the pursuit of happiness—for god’s sake, you are advocating the DENIAL of the right to the pursuit of happiness to the actual living HUMAN BEING. In simpler terms, you are denying the very thing on which all your argument rests. You should be more careful next time as to not confess so much.

You say “that ‘life’ should be ALLOWED…” Allowed by what right? Your whims? So, you do see that you are not speaking of RIGHTS, but allowances and permissions for clusters of cells—at the expense of destroying the legitimate rights of actual living human beings—and people think that you are motivated by benevolence and love.

And how would you ‘allow’ such a ‘life’ to survive anyway?—by feeding off of others who YOU have reduced to involuntary servitude? And how is that child going to achieve happiness anyway if he is born unwanted, to parents who are incapable of taking care of him? But of course, government taxes will always be there.

As you also seem to think that it is the mere concept of ‘life’ that gives rise to ‘rights’, then I suggest you let live any viruses or parasites that happen to enter your body one day—because you wouldn’t want to “murder” them and end their right to pursue their own happiness. Practice what you preach—if you dare.

SS wrote

I don't see an embryo in the early stages as potential life, but as developing life. We develop our entire lives.

Once again, potential and actual refer to HUMAN BEINGS, not life. And I’ll make note of that dishonest equivocation which you pulled up there. Sure we may develop our entire life, but the purpose of your equivocation is not to show that—it’s to destroy the difference between human beings an embryos—but then again, anyone could use the same dishonesty to justify killing anyone, because we are all ‘developing corpses’…by your language. The distinction between potential and actual is undeniable. Embryos are potential human beings, not actual human beings; and all human beings are potential corpses, not actual corpses—which is why we don’t bury them alive. An embryo is an embryo, a human being is a human being, a corpse is a corpse: A is A.

SS wrote

All there is here is a baseless attack on people with differing opinions, and rehashing of the arbitrary "potential" and "actual" terms, which I never agreed with in the first place.

Well, here’s news for you: it’s not you duty to agree to anything, let alone this. You are perfectly free to cling to your rationalizations—you have the RIGHT to do so—just don’t try to legislate them for others.

SS wrote

I am all for taking away the RIGHT to abortion (murder(?)) for the sake of protecting the lives of the unborn, no matter what verbage is used.

You can make yourself believe that. But you should say what you really mean, but won’t admit: That you are all for taking away the RIGHT(?) to abortion for the sake of protecting the lives(?) of the not-yet-living, and to hell with reason—you’ve got your rationalized emotions.
An ‘unborn child’ is contradiction in terms, you genius. Try saying ‘legal murder’.:D

Here’s another funny thing: you clearly admit that abortion is indeed a right [in which case it is not murder, but YOU wish to turn it into murder]—and you openly admit violating it—in order to grant an unrequested permission at your whim. And of course you can’t do it rationally, i.e.: convincingly—you invoke the power of that mystical non-entity called the government to use the good old club. But a club isn’t an argument, is it?

SS wrote

Also, unless someone is raped, I don't see how they can claim that a child is forced on them.

Listen to yourself Attila! What do you think it is that you’re advocating? Are you not the one trying to FORCE an unwanted pregnancy. And who the hell are you to dictate how and when people should have sex?—or do you think that you own other people’s bodies and minds?—or do you just wish that you did?

SS wrote

The reason to make abortion illegal is to protect the life of the unborn. It is directly for their benefit.

Tsk…tsk..tsk. If you had the correct definition of the concepts you just used, you wouldn’t be saying that.

SS wrote

Right. The cells of the embryo are living human cells, but more than that, they are developing into a human adult. Your tonsils, skin, and appendix are not.

Hmm… Now I see the full purpose of that equivocation. However, you should know that you are a ‘developing corpse’, and as there is absolutely no difference between a potential and an actual corpse, therefore burying you right now is perfectly legitimate—because it’s inevitable that you will die anyway….

SS wrote

An erroneaous appeal to consequences.

That is something you say to Pascal’s Wager, and to unproven BELIEFS/assumptions, not [observable] FACTS. How the hell can you consider actions while at the same time discarding the consequence of their outcome? Or do you propose acting mindlessly? Fine. Start violating traffic laws, and cut a few red lights—don’t worry about the consequences. But don’t stop there, go murder people in public—and don’t consider the consequences—after all, doing so is a logical fallacy.
Your reversal of truth is noted.

SS wrote

Somehow society has no problem telling men who get women pregnant "to give up their future, and condemn them to a life of hopeless drudgery, of slavery to a child’s ... financial needs."

Of course. YOUR kind of society.

SS wrote

Just because you can't imagine something doesn't make it impossible for another.

Figure of speech. Don’t evade.
Great confession though—I’m starting to see what YOU hold as possible.

SS wrote

At any rate, this is stereotyping of the reasons for arguing to make abortion illegal, not against the arguments themselves

This is like saying you can logically refute the arguments that the Nazis used to rationalize the murdering of the Jews, but you do not dare point out the evil reasons behind the rationalizations themselves. Another funny thing: It’s maintained that it’s not OK to judge, but it’s perfectly OK to make the judgment that “it’s not OK to judge”—somehow.

SS wrote

so I don't feel the need to respond further.

It is not your duty to do so. You have the RIGHT to evade.

SS wrote

"By what right does one claim the power to dispose of the lives of others and dictate their personal choices?" -Ayn

The same right any society holds over those who choose to break the laws they have enacted. Is this an argument against abortion or against society itself?

That’s dishonest—though I suspect you don’t know it. Who’s ‘society’? Those who believe that abortions should be illegal? Because that’s got to be what you mean. Those who know that women have the rights to their own bodies certainly aren’t part of that ‘society’.

I’ve been saying this for a while now—every time someone needs to pass of an evil idea, a mystic, undefined and unidentified entity has to be called for the rationalization—here it’s good old ‘society’—by which he means the ‘tyrannical MAJORITY’…but which he won’t admit…not even to himself.

You should also know that what you are speaking is the rule of brute force, not rights. ‘Society’ will enslave because it can, not because it is right, or has the right. RIGHTS DO NOT COME FROM ‘SOCIETY’. Rights exist exactly for these sorts of evils that you are advocating: to protect individuals from ‘society’ [YOUR ilk]. A majority does not have the right to vote away the rights of a minority, and the smallest minority on this earth is the INDIVIDUAL—there is no such thing as the ‘right to enslave’.

And if you hold on to the idea that whatever ‘society’ [by which I always mean the little time Attilas] decides(?) [society has no brain—it’s a non-entity] is ‘right’, then there are absolutely no evils in this world, because whatever society decides would be good and right. Slavery would be right, discrimination against minorities, mass slaughter of all those killed my mindless mobs (attempted extermination of jews, the inquisition, the ruthless mass murders of communist regimes, worldwide genocides…).

I see that you also wish to equate abortion with usual criminal laws—you wish to create another ‘victimless crime’—and alleged ‘crime’ that violates absolutely no one’s rights [prostitution, drug use, obscenity/sodomy laws, alcohol/tobacco prohibition, etc…]—a law that would violate legitimate rights.

SS wrote

"A proper, philosophically valid definition of a man as “a rational animal,” would not permit anyone to ascribe the status of “person” to a few human cells.
Ibid."

As I have pointed out, we don't only protect those that are able to prove their rationality. If this is an argument that we should define and protect life when it can demonstrate reason, we can discuss that, but it really has nothing to do with abortion.

Trust me, I am not feeling much enthusiasm for the idea of discussing ideas with you anyway. I’ve already explained the meaning of “rational animal”. Ignore it if you wish. I happen to have just lost the mood to repeat myself.

VOR,
It is not my desire to be as prolific as you. Thus I do chose not to respond to much of what you say. I read it all, and try to respond to points closer to the root of the argument, and ignore the generalizations and name calling, and tangents you like to take.

Please define what a right is. It appears as though your definition would be something along the lines of anything anyone feels entitled to. Thus someone could claim the right to possession of all the oil in the world. Or the right to use their gun for any purpose. When I have used the term "right" it has been in reference to actions and freedoms protected by our government; rights under the law.
To make this very clear, at the moment, the actions of having and performing abortions are protected.
You (VOR) may call abortion a right because some people feel entitled to it.
I call it a right only because it is protected by law right now.
I would propose that we no longer protect this action, but instead make it illegal.

This should clear up your whole societal tangent now, if you go back and reread what I said about society giving people rights; Legal rights ARE given by and enforced by society in the form of government.

You accuse me of rehashing something you have already refuted, but I see no refutation.

I see this instead:
"she did not say that abortion is somehow wrong after three months. She just said that one could argue about it. But that’s a mere ‘border-line case’." VOR

All I see above is a claim that it "one could argue about" abortions occuring after three months, which is simultaneously a claim that "one coudn't argue about" abortions previous to three months. I don't agree with this claim, and there is no evidence provided for it.

I have claimed that:
"Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between a developing human being at 3 months after conception, and also at birth."

To make this more clear for those who lack reading comprehension:

Ayn Rand has portrayed an arbitrary difference between developing human beings within the first three months of development, and those past the first three months of development.

Ayn Rand has also (at another time) portrayed an arbitrary difference between developing human beings previous to birth, and those that have been born.

I don't see a reason why the life of a developing human should be protected just after birth, but not just before. What change is undergone during birth to justify this difference? That is a simple, direct question. Please provide a simple and direct answer, instead of accusing me of rehashing a supposedly refuted argument. Remember: "A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." So according to Ayn, an unborn child has no right to life at any time.

As for the developing corpse bullocks:
If I were you, I would make some claim about your honesty for even bringing it up, but instead I will suggest that to make such claims the way you do is trite.
Now, when I use "developing", I use it in a biological sense:
1. To progress from earlier to later stages of a life cycle.
When I am a corpse, I am no longer in the life cycle, and thus incapable of developing.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=child
child Audio pronunciation of child ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chld)
n. pl. chil·dren (chldrn)

1. A person between birth and puberty.
2.
1. An unborn infant; a fetus. <<<<<<<<<<<,

May I assume we are talking about Abortion being legal/illegal in America based on whether it is considered murder or not? Let's go to the Constitution for this question.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution is the term un-born found. We have protections set up for the already born American citizens but not even in our 10-year census forms is a pregnant woman considered 2 people. The unborn cannot legally inherit, legally given a social security number or be counted in any way as a viable member of the community.

The Bush administration would want to amend the Constitution by changing the status of the unborn. But the Bush Administration is run on Christian principles, not American Freedoms that our founding fathers wanted.

I know of no one in our government or even in our states who would mandate an abortion. This still a choice for the mother, father, clergy, family as a whole to make this decision. It has also been given to the woman to make this choice on whatever reason she sees fit. I would have to assume that American men are not told if their seed fertilized an egg which is a much safer way for the law to read. Women have been and are being physically abused by their lovers for hundreds of years and women will certainly protect themselves from these abusive bullies for their own survival.

If men are so concerned about having their sperm unnamed, may I suggest you are more careful where you leave it.

Keep your pants zipped gentlemen and the problem will disappear. I see we have a bunch of Christians showing up here which of course forces the bible down the throats of the rest of us. Nice try! But you are going to have to prove to many of us here that you are in fact, up to the moral standards that you love to throw out.

I'm in my 70s and have yet to meet a Christian who has a moral value as strong as my own. You talk the talk but can't walk the walk so your words are meaningless to me.