Anti-Abortion Laws

" This sentence is really absurd coming from one who happens to claim that A is A. The closest thing I could think of is saying that a rabbit is bits of flesh and fur that happen to have the characteristic of big ears and a fuzzy tail. Let's break it down further: " Actually a rabbit is not "bits of flesh and fur," the flesh and fur is merely external. Internally there are other things going on, unless we use a very loose definition of flesh. Thus the analogy isn't accurate, because my description of a fetus is more accurate than your description of a rabbit. " Why not a group of atoms? That's technically accurate too. The fact that the group of cells forms a single living organism really isn't worth mentioning anyway. An organism or a mold, it's all really the same thing. That is, a group of cells. " The "atoms" don't have the characteristic of homo sapiens DNA. The organism bit may be worth mentioning, but a description is not inaccurate by omission of a trait alone, so long as it does not claim to be exhaustive. " I'm not certain why characteristic is here. And homo sapien means human. And the fact that it is human DNA means it is genetically human." "Homo sapiens" for any meaningful purpose is not synonymous with "human." Homo sapiens" is the biological species under which all known humans fall, but human, for the purpose here, is defined as "rational animal." It is entirely possible to be of the species "homo sapiens" without being "human" in this definition (and theoretically possible to be "human" without being homo sapiens), so to equate them based on an irrelevant biologist's definition is the fallacy of equivocation when applied to a philosophical discussion. " So, translated away from the long words and gross imprecision, the sentence reads: "A fetus is an organism that happens to be genetically human." But A is A, right?" There is no such thing as "genetically human" under the above definition of human. Humanity is not a trait defined by genes, regardless of whether it is caused by them. " REALLY? What, so it might turn into a chicken? A goose maybe? Will that fetus turn into a little turtle? The fact of the matter is, if everything goes as it is biologically intended to, the fetus will DEFINITELY turn into something rational, which is no surprise, since it is already human (at least if we are to trust genetics in such matters). For someone who makes the audacious claim that A is A, you certainly seem to be doing a lot of equivocating." It will not turn into a chicken or a goose, or a turtle, but those are straw men, and you are obviously ignorant of what I was getting to. It will not "definitely" turn into something rational, and there is no such thing as "biologically intended." Biology does not have a teleology. It may turn into a miscarriage, or an aborted fetus, or a stillborn creature, or someone who accepts absolutely everything on faith Many such possibilities exist in which a homo sapiens fetus does not become rational. We are not to "trust genetics" in such matters, certain traits in genetics may be a necessary cause of rationality, but nothing except one's own choice can be a sufficient cause of it, by definition- rationality is the choice to be conscious of the truth, the choice to take actions conducive to that end, and actions in accordance with the truth once known. " Frankly, your position quite clearly supports infanticide. Or, if not infanticide, at least what would clearly be child abuse. Rights are, according to you, "the proper relations between rational beings." Babies are no more rational than third trimester fetuses. Certainly, they have no conception of ethics, which you also deem necessary. A new born child, or any baby that can not yet speak, "does not demonstrably think, and if it does think, its thoughts are certainly not yet evident in its actions. It does not produce the necessities of its own existence, nor anything to trade for them. It just sits there," on a teat "sucking away. It thus violates the requirement of reason." While this may not justify outright killing of the baby, it certainly justifies starving the child, taking no precautions for the baby's safety, or any other form of neglect one can think of. As you say, the lack of reason "is why it does not have a right to life, or anything else." True to a certain extent. Babies are in fact demonstrably capable of certain rational functions, although they lack accumulated knowledge of the world with which to make extensive use of it- for example, they are able to become conscious of certain quantitative functions (at least according to various psychological experiments that show babies to be quite shocked when faced with apparent quantitative impossibilities, compared to being faced with that which is apparently possible. They thus do have rights- they aren't particularly capable of making use of them of course. Simply their being born incurs no obligation to feed them or do anything else for them- but when they are born they do exercise their liberty by crying. When a parent (or other party) begins the task of caring for them, they make an implicit promise to continue to do so as long as necessary, and therein lies the obligation by contract- but prior to that implicit promise, prior to someone taking up the task of caring for them, the infant is on their own. I should note this isn't the "official" Objectivist position: most of the writers at both TAS and ARI have scrupulously avoided specific discussion of it, perhaps because of evasion, they might be made uncomfortable by it- but it is the only position I can take in light of the knowledge available. "I mean, you've really dug a hole here. In your system, reason is everything. Because of that, it would seem that every pregnancy ought to end in an abortion. You build the argument yourself. " Surely you must realize that some people will have a kid because they want to? It's their womb, their issue. EVERY pregnancy ending in abortion would mean force of law against them still, and would violate the woman's rights as much as outlawing abortion. " The logic is pretty clear here. If rational self interest based on reciprocity justifies the choice of an abortion, it demands the choice of an abortion. A being acting against reason, if I am not mistaken, is contemptible by your standards. And based on Reciprocity, allowing any pregnancy is violating reason." You have to keep in mind that, IF the fetus is made by the woman's conscious will (hard to believe but there are such women out there :)) the fetus is no longer violating reciprocity, it's just doing what she invited it to do. I was speaking of unwanted fetuses when describing the violation of reciprocity. So nope, your objection doesn't hold. " 1. No really acceptable definition of the nature of rights has been found thus far." What's unacceptable of what I put up above? "2. Rights based on rationality is further unacceptable, because rationality (being immaterial, as most of the greatest things in life are) is imprecise and open to abuses (for instance, many would call religious people irrational, making it possible for them to be stripped of rights)." It is entirely possible to have an error of rationality, or a breached rationality. Simply because someone holds a specific irrational belief does not mean they are completely lacking in rationality. If they choose to be irrational of course they are evil, but evil alone does not remove rights. To consider someone without rights they must either completely lack the trait of rationality (which would mean not having religion but being incapable to form religion, because religion, though it stems from the irrational concept of "Faith," requires a logical structure in order to have room to commit it's error, error without a mind is a contradiction), or one must violate reciprocity. Length violation, will continue in comments :D