About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6


Post 120

Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. THOMPSON: Questionable definition (item #1):
Human being (paraphrased definition subject to refinement): a being of past, actual, or futuristically certain, volitional consciousness

Refutation:
Leaving aside that this arbitrary re-definition would mean that Shakespeare IS a human being now (he IS because he WAS), let’s proceed directly by coming to a definition using a proper, validated method …

The Conceptual Common Denominator of “human being” may be (for the sake of argument) taken here as “volitional consciousness”. In this respect, and after measurement-omission, a “human” must have consciousness in SOME quantity, but may have consciousness in ANY quantity. A logical conclusion of the above is: No nervous system – No consciousness – No human (a zero value for consciousness disqualifies an entity as being a token of the category, or concept, of “human being”). In other words, an embryo or 1st trimester fetus is different from an individual human being in “kind”, not merely in “degree”.

MR. STOLYAROV: The reason why Shakespeare is NOT a human being is because, to paraphrase my original definition, a human being is an entity of past volitional consciousness with SOME VESTIGE of PRESENT BODILY PROCESSES remaining within his organism. Shakespeare being absolutely dead and rotten by this time, he cannot claim any present function which serves as the qualifier.

This part of the definition is necessary in order to distinguish the Shakespeares from the X. Quintus Grummonds (refer to my hypothetical scenario).

As for the difference in "kind" argument, with a fetus, at least, the difference is indeed one of degree, that is, degree of the consciousness's development, of which the first step is a genome that defines the biological mechanisms which will be subsequently created. (In terms of past volitional consciousness, there is also a difference of degree, as the bodily processes required to sustain, i.e. physically nourish, a consciousness, are present, and may lead to the revival of the brain's functionality even if after decades of comatose conditions.)

MR. THOMPSON: a particular genome, in the absence of a poorly-defined concept he calls “intervention”, will lead to a particular human

Refutation:
A particular genome will not lead to a particular human. I quote from the American Journal of Medical Genetics (Am J Med Genet. 1996 Jan 22;61(3):216-28):

“Most monozygotic twin pairs are not identical”

As monozygotic twins have the same genome, the fact that even their fingerprints can be discordant proves that the “map” is not the “territory” (the genome is NOT an incorrigible, particular “recipe” for a particular individual). In short, in assuming that a mere genome is a futuristically certain human, the context must be dropped - genomes don’t exist as “static identities” in a vacuum, they are “defined, and refined” against the backdrop of the environment

MR. STOLYAROV: Mr. Thompson's factual analysis is correct: a genome's influence has to be coupled with environmental factors to determine the finished product of a human being's looks, consciousness, etc. A genome outside the womb will not develop no matter how intricate a scheme is contained in it, and certain environmental circumstances will, of course, result in outcomes other than different environmental circumstances. But while slight differences will always exist, the fact remains THAT a human being will be created (who has rights, no matter what his particular physical features or mechanisms, so long as they are indeed HUMAN) and that, under "standard conditions," according to the Law of Pregnancy, we can quite accurately predict particulars.



Post 121

Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 9:23amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
MR. THOMPSON: Questionable inference (item #3):
Children are always “worth it” (net gain in value to parents)

Refutation:
An excellent counter-example has to do with step-parents. Work by M. Daly & M. Wilson in the late 1980s and early-to-mid 1990s shows that only half of step-fathers have “parental feeling” toward their step-children and even less claim to “love” them (data on step-mothers is even worse, albeit less relevant to this particular issue at hand – only relevant if unwanted child is adopted out)

MR. STOLYAROV: First, accepting Mr. Thompson's data, if half of step-fathers indeed approach their children with the proper emotions, this implies that a non-aborted child will have a 50% chance of a fulfilling childhood, which is far superior to the 0% he will receive in the event of abortion.

Moreover, a "parental feeling," however rewarding it may be in itself, is an emotion that is derivative of value-premises, which may or may not be false (the absence of such a feeling, then, would follow from faulty value-premises). False value-premises, remember, lead people to reject genuine material and psychological values for pseudo-values and delusional states of mind (say, drug consumption). False value-premises can only be permitted by law so long as they violate the rights of no one but him (or her) who holds it. Therefore, a father, mother, or stepfather without a genuine love for the child to be born may by all means adopt it out, but may not KILL IT and use the falsehood within his mind as a blank check for the initiation of force.

MR. THOMPSON: Questionable inference (item #4):
Any unwanted conception is the parents’ fault

Refutation:
Birth control is only about 99% effective, at best

MR. STOLYAROV:

Once again, Mr. Thompson is quite correct in his factual analysis (the statistics go even lower. Most forms of contraception are only 94-98% effective). However, there does exist another surefire form of birth control, abstinence (which, in a rational, non-mystical, this-worldly sense of analyzing cause and consequence, is quite a commendable practice). Abstinence is the only certain means of preventing pregnancy and STDs. When a couple engages in intercourse, they, in a state of full rationality, acknowledge the identity of the protection involved INCLUDING the possibility of its failure. The responsible, rational man, when taking a risk, also accepts the responsibility for consequences in the event of an unfavorable or subjectively undesirable outcome. Even 94% is quite a large probability of not causing a pregnancy, and many people, when engaging in intercourse, may reasonably consider this a fine chance to take. Yet this does not, again, grant them a blank check of any sort.



Post 122

Monday, July 28, 2003 - 7:17pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
G. Stolyarov II, wrote:

"However, there does exist another surefire form of birth control, abstinence (which, in a rational, non-mystical, this-worldly sense of analyzing cause and consequence, is quite a commendable practice). Abstinence is the only certain means of preventing pregnancy and STDs."

So, you can just imagine Roark and Dominique, Galt and Dagny, all rational individuals, fully aware of the law of cause and effect and futuristic certainty and the rights of zygotes ... you can just imagine them not wanting to interrupt their productive careers with a child ... you can just imagine them engaging in all kinds of kinky anal and oral sex to avoid the potential failure of birth control during their lovemaking.

"You can't go in THERE, John! Futuristic certainty, John, futuristic certaintyyyYYYyyy! Oh, Galt, that was incredible."

Is that what you had in mind, you naughty boy? :) Or perhaps you have a position on the morality of those actions, too, Mr. Stolyarov?



Post 123

Monday, July 28, 2003 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Futuristic Chaos …
(I do not apologize for the following - because I promised that I would do this - but I still feel a little guilty for it)

First, I will give a very brief version of a futuristically-optimistic potentiality (a best-case scenario of the “genomes have underlying rights” theme advocated by Mr. Stolyarov).
Then I will give a much more terrifying version of the story.

Let me make one thing perfectly clear: I mean no disrespect to the man known as Mr. Stolyarov (I actually find him to be quite insightful and genuine). However, this particular IDEA of his is something that I plan to do “justice” to here, with a few ideas of my own (“justice”: to treat equals equally, and unequals unequally).


The Best-Case Scenario:
It is the year 2050 and Stolyarovian University is celebrating their Nobel Prize for discovering (distinguishable from “inventing”, “interpreting”, or “emoting”) that an “embedded” genome is a futuristically certain human being. “Stolyarovian U”, as it is often called by insiders, is also celebrating the newly-passed law, the Parenthood Act, that their legal department (working with their Western Philosophy department) had drafted. It passed in Congress unanimously and without a single request for revision or amendment.

Mr. Stolyarov himself, the founder of this prestigious university, has 3 BUBs (back-up bodies) and 3 CVCs (copies of volitional consciousness) lined up in the university’s Genetics & Cell Biology lab in the unfortunate case that his present body is destroyed or “wears out”. His genome has a “right to life” now (a clause in the new law passed), so it would be a crime to prevent him from “copying” himself when his original body “wears out”.

Televised commercials advertising the incorporation of the Stolyarovian Continuum Institute for the High-Minded finish with catchy phrases such as “Have you hugged your genome today?”, “Everyone has a genome deep down inside, just waiting to be set free in the world to express itself!”, “Genomes are people, too!”, and “It is a certainty that some potentialities are actually actualities in a certain futuristic sense, so support “SCI for the High-Minded” – and don’t let your actual future leave you potentially uncertain!”.

Everyone recognizes the new law, society prepares for it (with various support programs), and the “intelligent” start to breed at an equal pace with the “unintelligent” for the first time in human history, giving birth to the concept of “Indirect Eugenics”, another milestone attributed to Mr. Stolyarov.


One Worst-Case Scenario (of several in my imagination):
It is the year 2050 and the Parenthood Act has the country of Altruia in a quiet rage. The lack of empirically verifiable certainty – indeed, the fundamental UNCERTAINTY – of the Law of Pregnancy has intellectuals arguing that the Parenthood Act may be forcing hundreds of women to “prepare” for their pregnancies for every one of them that actually stays pregnant (hundreds of lives affected for each actual child born). They also argue that forcing pregnancies against the judgment and timing of parents in the context of their lives will actually reduce human happiness, achievement & productivity, and even the “general welfare” by taking away from those children already born or from those “yet to be conceived” when the timing is better for the parents in the context of their life plan and available abilities & resources).

Sensing that the people of Altruia, the Altruists, may not entirely accept the Act, the State creates an agency of Family Obligation & Recidivism-Controls Enforcement (agency of F.O.R.C.E.). All pregnancies are to be registered ASAP. And an official record of family planning desires is kept at the State and with your employer. The people are told that they should not attempt to dissuade dissenters by reasoning with them, and that the proper way to deal with these criminals is not by the use of reason, but by the use of F.O.R.C.E. (by quietly turning in your dissenting neighbor to the agency).

Mrs. I.M. Sovereign has been showing up to work with a radiant glow. Her co-workers, who fearfully follow the “Act” (or at least feign that they do), feel contempt for her and imagine that she must be breaking the rules by abstaining from abstinence (she marked the “wishful pregnancy/unprotected sex” box on the State/Employer record - which every woman has to keep updated at their place of employment).

As she arrives at her desk this morning, she tries to hide the fact that she senses the glares of her co-workers and she tries to concentrate on the work that she has to complete by today’s deadline. She starts to feel nauseous and looks around to see if anyone is noticing. In a quiet, hurried fashion she makes her way to the bathroom, nervously trying to see if people are looking at her without shifting her eyes to the side or turning her head. She keeps her head down to try to limit unwanted attention.

As she enters the bathroom, she realizes what this might mean: morning sickness from a pregnancy. Unbeknownst to her, a co-worker has already video-phoned F.O.R.C.E. with her work I.D. photo and the confidential-only direct-link to her Family Planning File in the Employer’s Database. An agent F.O.R.C.E. has just responded and he is entering the special system of travel for agents, the State’s Electro-Magnetubes. The State’s Electro-Magnetubes are a closed system of ultra-high-speed, luge-type, non-contact, magnetic travel tubes that allow for agents of F.O.R.C.E. to be carried anywhere in the city within seconds.

As Mrs. Sovereign exits the bathroom, she is accosted by the agent. He asks if she is feeling sick this morning and she quivers and admits that she doesn’t feel entirely okay this morning, as she looks around at all the others who are watching her with a piercing, menacing gaze. The agent has her stand still as he waves a wand in front of her abdomen (he is scanning her with a CellCheck stick which is used to find unusually high numbers of cells in any area of the body – it cannot differentiate the type of cells however, only the number of cells).

As the stick goes off with a red light and a beeping sound, he warns her of the consequences of an unregistered pregnancy. He says to her as he puts the magnetic cuffs on her and leads her out: “You had better hope that this is endometrial cancer, Lady, because if it’s an unregistered pregnancy, then you are in a world of trouble”.

Ed



Post 124

Saturday, December 6, 2003 - 7:39amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Okay, okay.
Here's my take:

"futuristic certainty": nonsequitur. Causation is more complex than that. "All things being equal, conception will result in a birth". No. According to the research I've read on this topic, approximately HALF of all conceptions do NOT "result in a birth" -- NATURALLY. These things aren't even considered "miscarriages".

2. The issue of the "born" versus the "pre-born" breaks down to one topic, and one topic only: is the fetus BIOLOGICALLY INTEGRATED into the woman's system? the answer is yes (umbilical cord connection.) The Fetus is BIOLOGICALLY DEPENDENT on her. (This is why all the pathetic caterwauling about women in comas. If they turn the machines off, she'll die, and so will the fetus. Thus, the fetus is UTTERLY dependent PHYSIOLOGICALLY on her, for survival.

Infants are not. Even premature ones. I was born prematurely, but -- and notice something here --- after I was born, there was NO physiological linkage between me, and my mother. Social, yeah. Psychological, yeah. But NOT physiological. The mother and the child BECOME two seperate entities, when they are SEPARATED --- AT BIRTH.
How hard is this for people to understand?

This debate might be slightly interesting if it had to do with, say, conjoined twins, and their legal rights. Do "conjoined twins" have individual rights? I would say yes, beause while they are physiologically integrated to some degree, they BOTH can actively, volitionally participate in the maintenance of the "partnership". A fetus cannot do that, either. The Fetus contributes NOTHING, and gains immensely from the woman. Conjoined twins are (and MUST BE) co-equal in the maintenance of their own lives.



Post 125

Wednesday, February 4, 2004 - 8:44pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Umm...just stop having sex. I did it, and it solved the abortion issue real quick. Having sex even on birth control probably has a risk associated with it that is similar to skydiving.

Natural laws of reality say that If you jump out of an airplane gravity will pull you toward the earth. If you have sex the natural laws of reality say that you will get pregnant. You can only avoid these things by using parachutes and condoms. but niether have a 100% guaranty, abortion is like asking someone to scrape your flat smushed body off the ground after you have fallen from 30,000 ft.. I think that none of you have the real will power to remain objective when your irrational "urges" take over your mind. Just stop fucking like immature teen-agers.



Post 126

Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 2:42amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
>> Umm...just stop having sex. I did it, and it solved the abortion issue real quick.

Would you say that, overall, this decision has actually *improved* the quality of your life? My reason for asking is that you seem to have given up something of value in order to avoid what, with proper contraceptive practices, is a very small risk (ie unwanted pregnancy).

Seems to me a bit like giving up the benefits of having a car to avoid the risk of being involved in a collision.



Post 127

Thursday, February 5, 2004 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Humanicus, while celibacy is a preventative measure against getting aids or making a girl pregnant, to refuse it outright is stupid.

If the situation dictates, and you see nothing wrong with it, go ahead. it is dumb to refuse out of fear.



Post 128

Saturday, June 20 - 7:42pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Oh dear.

How did I miss this?




Post 129

Saturday, June 20 - 10:04pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Perhaps you were phocused on something else?



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.