| | If, for the sake of argument, we accept Tibor's argument that the beginnings of a cerebral cortex is the sole necessary precondition for considering something a human being with human rights, than a wide range of non-homo sapiens species must be accorded rights, as Steve points out.
If we accept Steve's refinement of Tibor's argument that a being must have not only a cerebral cortex, but also a "consciousness capable of awareness, reason and choice", then the date for which a fetus should be considered a human being would be pushed well past the 23rd week of pregnancy that Tibor advocates -- and other species, such as dolphins, elephants, and monkeys would also have to be considered human beings.
I would add a minimum criteria that something has to be biologically homo sapiens to have full rights. But, even ignoring that complication, we still have the situation where two intelligent, rational people -- Tibor and Steve -- have used rational, objective criteria to define when human life should be protected, criteria that would result in considerably different laws. It takes no great leap of logic to realize that other intelligent people who embrace Ayn Rand's general philosophy, and who use rational, objective criteria, would come up with a plethora of criteria that can be logically defended on moral or utilitarian grounds.
So, who should arbitrate this dispute, seeing as how even Objectivists can't agree on this fundamental thing, and who should arbitrate who should arbitrate?
|
|
