RoR: Forum

Post 20

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 8:10am

Link

Edit

Once again, Mr. Glenn seems to think that repeating many times over that "potential is not actual" will negate the far more intricate nature of the issue as per the concept of futuristic certainty that I had mentioned. While a student will turn graduate only by his own will, and often NOT ABSENT EXTERNAL INTERVENTION, the fetus will not. Hence the analogy is entirely false.

As for "natural" abortions or miscarriages, these are not the functions of a deliberate external intervention on the part of the mother, but rather unfortunate side effects of the inherent and automatic imperfections of her body. I leave it to the free market and to medical science to remedy these occurrences, but there is no reason why the mother should be charged criminally in such instances. Her own body has already dealt her a blow against her expectations. Why should the government amplify it?

Once again, by ignoring futuristic certainty (as just about everyone on this forum has conveniently chosen to do), Mr. Glenn proposes some ridiculous non sequiturs which he wishes would invalidate my argument. Alas, 'tis not so.

And what about my argument concerning retaliatory force only being initiated against the offender (the rapist)? My opponents in the dispute have treated it with the response of Blank-Out, which is also quite ironic for so-called Objectivists (as this was the precise cultural trend which Rand deemed one of the most dangerous).

Post 21

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 3:08pm

Link

Edit

Regarding �futuristic certainty�: there is no such thing. Nature offers no �futuristic certainty� as reality continuously confronts us with the alternative between life and destruction. I agree that the student/graduate analogy is not a strong one, because failure to realize is completely within the student�s control. But the child/man progression is certainly relevant. (We do not ascribe the same rights to children as we do to men, yet it is a �futuristic certainty� that he will become one. Why? Because children are fundamentally different in nature to men. i.e. pre-rational.) But Mr. Stolyarov chooses not to address this.

Mr. Stolyarov also chooses not to fully address the political/legal ramifications of his ideas. There were countless instances when abortion was illegal, and still today, where miscarriage was induced through drugs and natural substances (such as rosemary antioxidant) and mothers claimed an �accidental� miscarriage. How would you prove this without a thorough investigation? What about true accidents? At what point does it become negligence and subject to prosecution? A plethora of bizarre legislated protections would need to be put in place due to the vulnerable nature of an embryo/fetus. Why? Because a embryo/fetus is not self-sustaining: one of the criteria for defining life.

I find it fantastic that Mr. Stolyarov uses the term �initiating force� in the context of an embryo/fetus. Here, he falls into the trap of treating the non-initiation of force principle as axiomatic. Initiating force is immoral in principle because it�s the only alternative to reason in a social context. An embryo/fetus is incapable of reason! It doesn�t even possess the range of senses (sight, hearing, touch, etc.) that a pre-rational baby/child possesses to begin to start integrating sense-data to generate concepts.

However, these are all minutiae or examinations of Mr. Stolyarov�s contradictions. The crux of this argument is whether an embryo/fetus is a human life. A human life is more than a collection cells and genetic material. (See my extract above, which Mr. Stolyarov also chooses not to address.) A potential life is an abstraction. It�s the idea of a life and it strikes me as wrong to ascribe rights to the non-real to the detriment of the real.

Mr. G.

Post 22

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 6:53pm

Link

Edit

MR. GLENN: Regarding �futuristic certainty�: there is no such thing. Nature offers no �futuristic certainty� as reality continuously confronts us with the alternative between life and destruction.

MR. STOLYAROV: This is refuted by elementary empirical observation. A pregnancy (aside the anomalous cases of natural abortion) does occur absent external intervention. True, a doctor plus hospital care will significantly alleviate the pains and increase the chances of the process's success, but the body of the pregnant mother operates in such a manner as to, provided the malignant (albeit circumstantial) intervention of hostile natural factors, give birth to a healthy child.

The alternative between life and destruction is precisely what this issue is about; the future life of the fetus, or the destruction thereof.

The fact that children do not possess some of the rights of adults corresponds to their developmental stage and the nature thereof. However, the child will ALWAYS, in ANY DEVELOPMENTAL STAGE, possess the basic rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. No one has the right to kill the child. His parents cannot starve him, nor flog him under their care. They cannot (except in punishment for an offense) deprive him of the opportunity to study the world and play with his toys. The reason for that is precisely because of the futuristic certainty that the child will evolve into a fully rational, self-sufficient being, if, once again, no anomalous natural factor (such as a tornado that tears him to bits) emerges. But Objectivism, as a well-known article by Rand had addressed, does not view emergency situations or chance interventions of circumstance to be the rule. The rule, rather, is purposeful human action in the context of ordinary daily affairs.

MR. GLENN: I find it fantastic that Mr. Stolyarov uses the term �initiating force� in the context of an embryo/fetus. Here, he falls into the trap of treating the non-initiation of force principle as axiomatic. Initiating force is immoral in principle because it�s the only alternative to reason in a social context.

MR. STOLYAROV: If a fetus is a human being, then the context is social indeed.

MR. GLENN: An embryo/fetus is incapable of reason!

MR. STOLYAROV: How is a newborn infant more capable of reason than a fetus? Mr. Glenn's argument can be extrapolated to, in effect, justify infanticide of children several weeks from birth, before they possess even such elementary concepts as shape or entity, and cannot in any manner interact with reality absent the support provided by their caretakers.

What the fetus and the newborn both lack are not the FORM of human consciousness (their genetic code grants that to them from conception), but rather its CONTENT. But assuming that a being is an irrational non-entity simply because it lacks certain CONTENT of consciousness is just like mass-euthanizing third-graders because they have not yet learned advanced calculus.

Post 23

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 7:00pm

Link

Edit

MR. GLENN: There were countless instances when abortion was illegal, and still today, where miscarriage was induced through drugs and natural substances (such as rosemary antioxidant) and mothers claimed an �accidental� miscarriage. How would you prove this without a thorough investigation? What about true accidents? At what point does it become negligence and subject to prosecution?

MR. STOLYAROV: This is a question for medical science and criminal investigation to define, not philosophy. Philosophy deals with the issue of whether abortion is ethical and whether the government should intervene to thwart it, as well as, to a certain extent, what the criminal penalties allotted offenders should be. Exactly how one would detect disguised abortions and distinguish them from natural accidents is a matter for policy makers and designers of whatever technology will serve to assist them.

No one stated that protecting the inalienable rights of man would be easy or simple. Otherwise, why would government be necessary even in a severely limited form?

Methodology of criminal detection of this subject deserves a book, not several meager posts. Perhaps, Mr. Glenn, if you ever accept the validity of my philosophical premises, you would do well to write one.

Post 24

Sunday, June 15, 2003 - 8:44pm

Link

Edit

�Futuristic Certainty�

I�m reluctant to respond to this point any further, because I think it�s a misnomer. My Stolyarov agrees that all entities are confronted between the choice of existence and destruction, so he accepts that nature offers no certainty.

What he is saying is that �under normal circumstances, all things being equal, with no outside intervention, a pregnancy will result in a birth� and I agree. However, one can�t, for moment, assume this as a �certainty.� There is a whole range of complexities and actions required that act on an embryo/fetus that can derail this �certainty�.

Mr. Stolyarov cites Ayn Rand�s �The Ethics of Emergencies� where she argues that �life as the standard of value� means a healthy, rational adult life under normal circumstances (not an embtyo/fetus, by the way!) not the life of a quadriplegic imbecile during a plane crash. She argues that one should not treat emergency or abnormal situations as the norm for determining ethics. But there is a vast difference between formualting a standard for ethics and maintaining the benevolent universe premise (i.e. that Good Things happen, that Bad Things aren�t metaphysically important, but being aware that they occur and taking rational steps to avoid them) and making metaphysical assumptions of �futuristic certainty.�

(This is not to argue against the �rights� of an embryo/fetus, by the way. I do that below. This was to challenge the idea that Mr. Stolyarov�s thesis is resting on, i.e. �futuristic [absolute] certainty.� Don't interpret this to mean that because we can die, there is no right to life.)

Children

I wanted to avoid getting into the discussion of children, because that�s a whole other can of worms. But the fact is that while children have the right to life (as a corollary of being self-sustaining/self-generating) as a minimum, it is not true that they should necessarily possess all other rights. See the discussion on the �sliding scale� of rights that Mr. Jeff and I offer here.

Right to Life

There�s no argument that a newborn is incapable of reason. But it is self-sustaining/self-generating and derives the right to life as a consequence. If self-generating/self-sustaining does not feature in your definition of life, then this is not an �Objectivist� condemnation of abortion. It would make quite a good religious one, though.

Faking Reality

I agree that the impracticality of �abortion police� is not convincing in itself. My point was, which wasn�t addressed, that it�s the very nature of an embryo/fetus that requires a plethora of bizarre legislated protections. It�s impractical because it would be an attempt to legislate a faking of reality, i.e. that an embryo/fetus is a human life.

MISTER g.

Post 25

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 5:55am

Link

Edit

Stolyarov, I don�t believe you addressed my concerns:

MR. STOLYAROV: Likewise, does the fetus not possess such an apparatus, defined by its already formed genome, and bound to develop into a fully functional mechanism for rational cognition ABSENT THE INTERVENTION OF ABORTION DOCTORS? The only difference here is that of development stage. The fetus is merely at an earlier developmental stage than the child, and the essential mechanisms of human consciousness are already developed within it. It is merely that the fetus is presently tabula rasa, as opposed to the child�s acquisition of a certain degree of content within his mind. Capacity already exists, in burgeoning form, as it inevitably does in futuristically certain beings. It would be immoral to grant sanction to the termination of a living being that possesses (from conception) the form by which man interacts with reality, but not the content. It is like stating that because a child has not yet been introduced to the Bill of Rights and the negative obligations he derives therefrom, that those rights do not apply to him, who yet possesses the mechanisms of rational capacity from which rights stem.

ZUMA: Sorry, Mr. Stolyarov, but a fetus in the 1st two trimesters does not have a developed brain � see Russell Madden�s excellent summary provided in his linked document in reply number 4. The early fetus is not tabula rasa because there is no mind to be tabula rasa. The early fetus is not sleeping because it has no mind. These predicates are incommensurate with the entity in question. The early fetus has a DNA blueprint for the construction of a mind and the physiological processes for the implementation of the development. However, it is not yet what it will be. A is A. A fetus in the 1st two trimesters is not a rational human being.

I did not comment on your idea of �futuristic certainty� because it is totally irrelevant. No matter how certain or uncertain a development is, a changing entity is not what it will be. To be is to be something in a certain respect at a certain time. A caterpillar cannot fly but it can develop into a butterfly. While it is a caterpillar it has to survive as a caterpillar. If it needs to fly to escape a predator, it will die. It matters little how certain its development would have been. It can�t be what it is not yet. A is A.

For a fully developed human being, rights are a requirement of survival because it is a rational being. It can�t survive as a fetus � parasitically connected and fed by another person. Man must use his conceptual facility. An early fetus, does not have a functioning brain; thus, no rights; thus, we can terminate its life. The certainty of its future is irrelevant, it doesn�t have the prerequisite to survive as a man: a functioning brain.

I must admit that the religious argument is superior to yours in a crucial way. The idea that God implants a soul at conception explains why the religious person ascribes rights. The argument is valid but the premise is wrong. At least one understands what it is about the identity of the fetus - that the religious person imagines - that motivates their argument that the fetus has rights from conception.

Post 26

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 6:27am

Link

Edit

Mr Stolyarov's venomous response to my purported 'final' post was unncessary (evidently, my views are 'typically leftist'). Nor do I think that I need further repond or point out the flaws in Mr. Stolyarov's position, as the other fellows on this thread have admirably done. The fundamental issue here is: whether a fetus is a human being. I wanted to commend and support Mr. Glenn in his lucid and eficient refutation of Mr. Stolyarov's view that pre-human is human. Mr. Zuma's posts are also admirably direct and expressive of the flaws of Mr. Stolyarov's position.

Post 27

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:13am

Link

Edit

MR. GLENN: But there is a vast difference between formualting a standard for ethics and maintaining the benevolent universe premise (i.e. that Good Things happen, that Bad Things aren�t metaphysically important, but being aware that they occur and taking rational steps to avoid them) and making metaphysical assumptions of �futuristic certainty.�

MR. STOLYAROV: When I sit down for dinner, there is a chance that I will choke on my food and die. Or my chair may fall over and smash my brain against its back. Or a meteorite may incinerate my house and me within it. Metaphysically speaking, these events are just as important to consider within the scope of my development and future activity as natural abortion and/or accidental miscarriage are within the scope of the development and future activity of the fetus. That is, there is an endless multitude of bizarre "what ifs" that could be conjured up in regard to why any activity or condition could end up in a disastrous fashion. This, however, does negate the compatibility of the Benevolent Universe calculus with futuristic certainty. Accidents happen; many are preventable by human volition. It would suit a mother well to work for the healthiest possible birth of her child. Should her BEST ATTEMPT remain insufficient, alas, that is a blow to her, but not a crime on her part. Should she, however, deliberately seek to work for the harm of the child, then she is to blame. This is the difference.

Let me further clarify that futuristic certainty is a condition wherein a process functioning in a standard situation in the manner FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED by Natural Law (a pregnancy having been intended to produce a healthy infant). A pregnancy was not intended to end in miscarriage, hence, the absolute metaphysical irrelevance of such a scenario in terms of futuristic certainty. (There is, however, a practical relevance to the mother to prevent this from occurring.)

Post 28

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:33am

Link

Edit

MR. GLENN: But the fact is that while children have the right to life (as a corollary of being self-sustaining/self-generating) as a minimum, it is not true that they should necessarily possess all other rights. See the discussion on the �sliding scale� of rights that Mr. Jeff and I offer here.

MR. STOLYAROV: I do not dispute the idea of the sliding scale and the gradual acquisition of rights by children as they become prepared to handle them. However, the right to life and its corollaries exist IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR ALL AGES. How can we arbitrarily draw a line we term "birth" and suddenly deny that right? The right to life is not something gradually acquired. It is present right there and then, as the entity's genetic code, which will define the scheme of its mechanisms, is generated.

MR. ZUMA: The early fetus has a DNA blueprint for the construction of a mind and the physiological processes for the implementation of the development. However, it is not yet what it will be.

MR. STOLYAROV: Essentially, Mr. Zuma is stating, while conceding the fact that the fetus's DNA, whole at conception, will (if Natural Law as it is intended is carried through)result in full rational capacity, that, because the end product does not exist, the process should be terminated. This amounts to the same temporal stasis-thinking that I had warned against in my article. Well, the fetus cannot use his mind here and now this second. Neither can a child use it fully, nor a sleeping man use it at all. This links back fully to the loopholes I had pinpointed in the standard Objectivist position on abortion.

The following article, refuting some of the myths stated by Grobstein, argues for the true beginnings of human life:

When Do Human Beings Begin?
"Scientific" Myths and Scientific Facts

by Dianne N. Irving, M.A., Ph.D

http://www.l4l.org/library/mythfact.html

The fetus is tabula rasa, as its unique personhood and genetic scheme (the FORM of consciousness, the idea of the particular mind in full, already generated) already exist. If the mind were compared to a machine, the DNA would be a computer program set in motion for automatons in a factory to construct it. If you entered the factory and burned the blueprint, you would already be guilty of property and patent violations.

MR. ZUMA: I must admit that the religious argument is superior to yours in a crucial way.

MR. STOLYAROV: No argument that grounds itself in supernaturalist superstition can ever be superior to a claim which contends to have only rational, fathomable evidence as its support. Even if the latter were flawed (which mine is not), "an error reached on your own is better than ten truths accepted on faith."

MR. ZUMA: It can�t survive as a fetus � parasitically connected and fed by another person.

MR. STOLYAROV: PARASITICALLY??!! To hear this from an Objectivist concerning a natural developmental state of man, and of every man, and, too, beyond his volitional control. This contention denies the nature of man as a noble and heroic being. Mr. Zuma writes, "A caterpillar cannot fly but it can develop into a butterfly. While it is a caterpillar it has to survive as a caterpillar." Yes, and a fetus has to survive as a fetus in order to develop into a man. There is nothing ignoble, violating, or parasitic about that.

Post 29

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:43am

Link

Edit

One of the many unverifiable folk tales told about Joseph Stalin in Eastern Europe has it, that when Orthodox Christian seminary student Iosip Vissarionovitch Dzhugashvili was recruited by the Tzar's secret police to infiltrate an underground Communist cell, he was told that his Christian trains of thought need not interfere with his effectiveness as a Communist: all he needed to do was to say "History" whenever he was about to say "God", and his secret was safe. Now we have Mr. Stolyarov refering to (his capitals) "a process functioning in a standard situation in the manner FOR WHICH IT WAS INTENDED by Natural Law." I am reminded of what Nitzsche said about history repeating itself as a farce...

Post 30

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 12:25pm

Link

Edit

Does man not require a brain?

Mr. Stolyarov says: �Well, the fetus cannot use his mind here and now this second.� Why do you ignore my comment that the early fetus, in the 1st 2 trimesters, does not have a functioning brain? You compare DNA, in the early development, to a blueprint for construction (in a similar manner to my exposition). But you seem to hold that the plans for X are as good as X existing. Are you saying that if nature can take it course and the organism will construct what is required for a rational capacity, a brain, we can consider the organism as having that brain now? That makes no sense to me � does it to you?

Your linked article does not address the important issue until the end - in myth/fact 13 and 14. At that point, its purpose is to dispute claims about the inception of certain mental activity. My point is not when does mental activity start but (less ambitiously) that it doesn�t start before there is a brain (can we agree here?) � and appropriate synaptic development. I claim a necessary condition is not established � not that a sufficient condition is established.

I�d thought we�d end disagreeing over the following issue: when does substantial change occur? However, we seem to disagree on whether or not change has to occur � you see a future fact is as good as a current actuality! Am I correct on our disagreement?

Post 31

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:06pm

Link

Edit

Mr Stolyarov writes: "... the right to life and its corollaries exist IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOR ALL AGES. How can we arbitrarily draw a line we term "birth" and suddenly deny that right? The right to life is not something gradually acquired. It is present right there and then, as the entity's genetic code, which will define the scheme of its mechanisms, is generated."

See, now this is arbitrary. Why does a life exist in all circumstances and for all ages? Why is life present as the entity�s genetic code?

Objectivists draw the line �life� when the entity becomes self generating/self-sustaining. Human life, of course, encompasses much, much more than this, including the requirement for rights. But human life remains a subset of life. What Mr. Stolyarov seems to be doing is inversing the hierarchy of knowledge and ascribing �humanity� (rationality, rights) to something before it is a life � in a very mystical way.

And implicitly, My Stolyarv does accept that an embryo/fetus is not a human life. He argues that it is a �futuristic certainty� than an embryo/fetus will progress from � what? � to a human life. I�m not sure what he thinks it progresses from, but progressing from a human life to a human life makes no sense.

Mister G.

Post 32

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:16pm

Link

Edit

To Mr. Reed: How is Natural Law ever a fitting substiute for the word "God" considering that "God" always implies a supernatural? Natural Law is merely the integrated sum of the absolute physical processes of the universe at work, part of which includes the dynamic of the pregnant female body which tends toward producing a healthy infant with futuristically certain rationality.

Locke employed Natural Law quite frequently in his writings to describe both physical and sociological phenomena. So did Mr. Jefferson and J. W. von Goethe.

Post 33

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:26pm

Link

Edit

Post 34

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:34pm

Link

Edit

MR. ZUMA: You compare DNA, in the early development, to a blueprint for construction (in a similar manner to my exposition). But you seem to hold that the plans for X are as good as X existing. Are you saying that if nature can take its course and the organism will construct what is required for a rational capacity, a brain, we can consider the organism as having that brain now? That makes no sense to me � does it to you?

MR. STOLYAROV: While I do uphold your blueprint analogy, I would deem it incomplete. Remember how I referred to the genetic code as a computer program that automatically sets the robots at a factory to work on the machine (child)? You cannot refer to that as a potential anymore. Instead of having the option amongst a million various genetic combinations, the essential form of consciousness and even physique to a significant extent, is defined and will follow a single pathway, a single assembly line, if you will. The only means by which this process will not inexorably come to its intended end is if some blockage to the assembly line, severance of the machinery, or destruction of the product itself, occurs.

No, I do not say that we must consider the fetus as having a brain now. Hence, we do not ask it what it wishes to eat for dinner, nor invite it to vote against Hillary Clinton in the next Presidential election. But this does not deny the rights of the fetus to exist and of his unique form of consciousness to develop. The fact is, he is already individual, and his removal will forever erase that genetic combination (to form by the the inexorable processes of Natural Law) from existence (unless he is cloned; this is partly why I uphold the moral and legal validity of cloning and genetic engineering, as I hope to explain in further detail later, perhaps in a different discussion).

This can also be used to furnish an answer to Mr. Glenn's concern. The fetus is a human life; what is futuristically certain is the FORM of its consciousness. The fetus progresses from the inception of the assembly line to its finish. The robots are at work building first the frame of the machine, then its components, and, only at last, its engine that will give it motion.

Of course, the commercial process does not end when the product rolls off the assembly line. It must still be tested, marketed, and adjusted if any flaws exist. This (roughly) is analogous to childhood, wherein the human being learns to 1) survive applying Natural Law and 2) exist in a social context. This is a dynamic process that yields a more finished product each step, but basic underlying qualities exist throughout, such as the product's very state of being (of course, this is where the analogy is inapplicable; the product is someone's property. The child is only temporarily bonded to another. As Locke argued, there is always an inviolate component of the child's existence, which includes his personal property and right to life, and the child always maintains a property in himself. ALWAYS.).

This is why "drawing the line" and defining one stage as non-life and the other life is arbitrary. This so reminds me of the Medieval superstition of Spontaneous Generation.

Post 35

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 3:46pm

Link

Edit

MR. ZUMA: I�d thought we�d end disagreeing over the following issue: when does substantial change occur? However, we seem to disagree on whether or not change has to occur � you see a future fact is as good as a current actuality! Am I correct on our disagreement?

MR. STOLYAROV: Our disagreement is rooted in the following: you wish to treat entities in a stasis, only based on their state in the here and now, and viewing the future to be irrelevant to your considerations. On the other hand, I do not equate actual existence with futuristic certainty (as I had explained earlier). Yet I recognize that certain underlying properties unify both, including the nature of the entities involved (in this case, of man/child) and the rights thereof.

A brief scenario is useful here. You ride a bicycle down a usually crowded alley. You momentarily encounter an empty stretch. Do you act as if the stretch were immediately occupied? Do you dodge empty air? No. But you do instruct yourself to watch for pedestrians and assure yourself that you are prepared to respond accordingly (assume the alley is so bustling with activity that it is just about inevitable that you will encounter pedestrians). The alley remains a pedestrian alley, and you remain on alert.

Or do you deny any pedestrian who suddenly approaches the right to use the street simply because he was not there a second (or nine months) ago?

Post 36

Monday, June 16, 2003 - 4:04pm

Link

Edit

The real meaning of "natural law" is that entities act according to their nature. Man's nature is to change nature - and therefore to change the consequences of natural law. By building silos, man, according to the nature of his natural law, changes the natural law of crop failures and famines. By surgery and medication, man changes the natural law of pain and disease. And by abortion, man changes the "natural law" of unwanted or inconvenient pregnancy. An appeal to man to act against his nature by NOT changing inconvenient features of the happenstance "natural order" cannot be justified except by ascribing "natural law" to something allegedly "higher" than man, such as God. Which is, unfortunately, the unstated basis of Stolyarov's argument. By failing to acknowledge that it is in accordance with Man's nature to change the nature of other things, Stolyarov is bringing God in through the back orifice.

Then Stolyarov does it again. The other leg of Stolyarov's argument is that the fetus has, to quote his post of Monday, June 16, 2003 - 11:33 am, a "unique personhood and genetic scheme - the FORM of consciousness, the idea of the particular mind in full." But an _idea_ can only exist in a conscious, functioning mind. In whose mind, then, does the fetus already exist as "the idea of the particular mind in full?" Certainly in no human mind, since no human mind has examined its "unique genetic scheme" at this point. So this other base of Stolyarov's structure also inserts his God into the back orifice of the argument, as the only mind in which this "idea of the particular mind in full" could conceivably exist.

Then Stolyarov inserts God into the argument a third time, asserting that the DNA of the fetus has the moral status of an inventor's blueprint for a product, so that "if you entered the factory and burned the blueprint, you would already be guilty of property and patent violations." Against whom? In the case of a real blueprint, against the designer. But in fact there is no designer, since the DNA is the product of a process of random evolutionary accidents. So whose property is being infringed in the case of abortion? Again, the only possible answer is the God in Stolyarov's back orifice.

Post 37

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 6:10am

Link

Edit

The Stolyarov �axiom� of �futuristic certainty� contains a misunderstanding about the concept of potential. Something is a potential not because it might not be actualized but only because it hasn�t been actualized. Even if a change is unavoidable, what an entity will become, strictly speaking, is still only a potential until it becomes what it will become. Usually, we focus on cases where there are alternatives � obviously we can deliberate about the alternatives. However, the concept of potential is one that integrates identity and change � not identity and chance.

Adam Reed, once again, makes some excellent points � and with wit. Nice! I particularly like the idea that passivity in the face of nature is not natural for man. Back to Mr. Stolyarov (I do hope you�re enjoying this, too)

Mr. Stolyarov : �Our disagreement is rooted in the following: you wish to treat entities in a stasis, only based on their state in the here and now, and viewing the future to be irrelevant to your considerations.�

This is a crude and inaccurate statement of my position. While I claimed you only wanted to view an entity as that which it has not yet become. Now you correct me:

Mr. Stolyarov : �On the other hand, I do not equate actual existence with futuristic certainty (as I had explained earlier).�

And I accept that. Now, let�s add another point that hopefully we both agree: a potential exists only in virtue of some actual. For the case of the fetus, it is the actual DNA, physiological processes and the woman�s nourishment that supports the potential. (However, aftet this we disagree.) What actually exists is not yet a human being (rational animal). It is not merely an incidental difference that time will heal but a substantial difference. A person may be incidentally sleeping � but retains the physical structure that enables human consciousness: a funtioning brain. A fetus, in the 1st 2 trimesters, is substantially different � it lacks the physical structure that enables human consciousness.

You claim that since DNA fully defines the individual and its construction is in progress, it is as good as done. The dye as been cast, the plan is set, it's in the cards, the play is written and character defined, etc. Right? I claim a substantial change hasn�t occurred. You claim it�s been defined. I claim: so what? At this point you invoke Stolyarov maxim: regard each entity as that which it will almost certainly become (aka "futuristic certainty"). At which point, I claim that a substantial change can�t be ignored or faked � no matter how well defined and certain its outcome. A fetus is not a person � and thus it has no rights.

I think this sums up our differences. Right?

Post 38

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 4:09pm

Link

Edit

Let's take this to it's extremes.

A man with a mental defect, with not even the potential to EVER utilize the rational faculties of his mind: right to Life, or death?
Should we view him as an animal, with no rights do to the lack of self-knowledge?

A normal man, with no mental defects, but is a wholehearted socialist, who has the option to utilize the rational capabilities of his mind, but chooses not to: right to life, or death?

A wholehearted socialist who never had the option of utilizing his rational faculties, such as a young man growing up in a Utopian commune, sheltered and blinded to reality. No samples of rationality could exist in such a place, so how could you expect him to be rational, even if he has the potential for it? Life or death?

Do we kill these people outright? Do we have the right? Has a man in a coma lost his right to life? What about a drunk man? A child genius, with full rational capabilities but not the life-experience to employ it realistically?

Kill them?

You can argue that potentiality does not equal actuality. Entirely true. A blank canvas does not a masterpiece make. But that doesn't negate the value of the canvas. And the lack of a rationally functioning (or just plain functioning) mind can't negate the value of life. A socialist has less value to me than a capitalist, but that doesn't mean I want them dead, or think anyone else has the right to kill them if they've harmed no one else.

I welcome response, for this is an issue I have questioned repeatedly and seek resolution to. I detest circular arguments.

J

Post 39

Tuesday, June 17, 2003 - 4:39pm

Link

Edit

So, does anyone take exception to my conclusion, (above, way above) that there is really no meaningful communication on this issue possible with Mr. Stolyarov? I have watched, as each of you gentlemen have dissected his arguments and masterfully exposed the flaws and contradictions. Mr. Stolyarov avoids these, and misinterprets your arguments. "Mr." Glenn, do you REALLY advocate slaughtering third-graders? ;>)

I have followed this thread soley because I am so heartened by the strong and lucid response to Mr. Stolyarov's brand of mysticism.

And to Jeremy Johnson: I suggest you re-read all the comments to this article. The answers you seek are there. None of the fellows here have advocated killing ANYONE. But the arguments above explain that the value of human life begins with its existence. Take a closer look, and your answers are provided. Unless you are just trying to 'mix it up'--if that is the case, proceed.