What does that mean? That potential independent removal of a fetus confers rights upon it, or that only actual independent removal confers rights on it?

And should we not recognize that Ayn Rand, in claiming birth as the moment there is movement from "potential" to "actual", is asking us to engage in an arbitrary line-drawing exercise?

After all, at what point in the birthing process are rights conferred upon the child? When his head is out? Elbows? Feet? When the umbilical cord is cut?

If we decide that "birth" is the place that a potential human becomes an actual human, we are stuck with the absurdity of it being nothing "pre-cervix" and being human when its head is "post-cervix".

The brain waves / cerebral cortex standard is much better and clearer on this.

Also, children are literally physically dependent on their parents post-birth.

Just to be sure that I understand you, are you saying that in the not too distant future, when the technology exists to actually grow an embryo to full gestation by mechanical means, that an abortion would then be illegal at any stage of development, from the moment of conception onward? In the statement above, you seem to be saying that you ascribe the right-to-life to an embryo but accept abortion as an acceptable alternative so long as the embryo/fetus does not have the ability to survive independently of the mother's body. This doesn't sound like an argument you would make, so I assume I am misinterpreting your statement.

Bill says, "Obviously, for legal purposes, there as to be a bright line -- a precise criterion for determining when it becomes a rights-bearing person." Aristotle was right to observe that what counts as precise changes from field to field--in geometry it's different from, for example, biology and sociology. The criteria of precision develop alongside the discipline which one needs to watch closely so as to have a handle on matters of demarcation, etc. In the case of the emergent human being, there can be some very general standards but in their application the individual, particular cases will ultimately have to be brought in. (Just think how precise are the criteria for differentiating a child from an adolescent, or the latter from an adult!).

I realize this is an old thread, but it came up as one of the ‘Random Past Articles’ and I couldn’t resist to be mean ;)

I find it ironically funny, that philosophers, priding their philosophy on the maturation of objective thinking, derive moral, philosophical, psychological, scientific and legal rights based on an evolutionary process of creating bio-matter dating back millions of years and present even in so many ‘lower’ forms of life, that ‘humanity’ in these terms becomes virtually non-existent.

‘duck for avalanche of shit-storm here’

In my opinion the question of rights of human matter are moot for two reasons:

The primary distinction you place on human life as opposed to animal (or artificial) life is the capability of rational thought and volitional action (that’s where the three laws of robotics would be pure evil), yet you define its rights based on the constitution (factual and processual) of its bio-matter. If it’s thought and action you presuppose, the bio-matter would only matter (the matter of the matter) as far as its required to carry that thought/action. Its constitution (which is an evolutionary process that’s billions of years old and was in no way related to humanity when it started – that’s why we’re still basically lizards) would therefore be of no consequence and would not directly result in the preference of thought and action (volition can mean (the other mean): ‘no I don’t want to exercise that preference’).

Unless of course you confer it to animals or (in more modern times) to artificial matter, too, so again no preferential treatment of human matter.

The second distinction you attribute to human life is its value. A value only exists in the context of its valuer. If there is no valuer, the value disappears. So if humans don’t value their eggs/fetus/child/adolescent/young adult, and they themselves are not yet capable of supporting their own value (if indeed they value themselves – that’s no longer a given in our society), then the value is not worth it and disappears. If there is an outside valuer he can take over the upkeep of the bio-matter required to uphold the wished-for value.

As long as that bio-matter is willingly handed over to a valuer by the producer – if not the non-valued value disappears. You cannot force me to value what you value just because I created it.

So let’s be mean! A species that does value its existence will upkeep its values, its abilities, no moral or legal or any rights required – only self-interest. A species that does not value its existence will simply perish – no big loss there. Same goes for single individuals in that species.

I understand the consequences in regard to the above topic(s). Volunteering help is not volitional if it’s coerced by law - it's resented - by both sides. Creating and sustaining life is not creation if it’s coerced by law - its destruction of creation and leads to creating only non-values as we see in todays humanity. As Machan stated in his initial article: “… we oppose

efforts to make such conduct legally mandatory!”


If that’s being mean, then let’s be mean. No one can force me to live (such life would be worthless) and no one can force me to uphold another life if I don’t value it.

Alas in our days anyone can force me to uphold even worthless life, which would bring me back to our present-day dilemma: a species that has no concept of its value anymore and upkeeps any kind of trash (mostly ideological, only some genetic as result of ideology) as long as its born from human genetic material (and they don't even realize the contradiction, that they support genetic matter based on ideology). In such terms it would be a kindness to weed out some of our present human bio-matter and human rights would not only be a moot point, but actively evil ;)

Done being mean :)

and before blasting me please keep in mind that I am indeed a valuer – albeit a very discriminating one … which is another of the many words that have come to mean sth quite different these days.

So if you accuse me of discriminating against 'differently abled' humans: I do - I value them based on their value to me - not based on their genetic material - just like any other human. If you think my life should have been terminated by my mother, so do I - she didn't, even though I broke her back (literally) being born barely 11 month after her twins.

Guess you develop an appreciation for the real values of human life when you see more of its actual implementation in reality. Nature sure ain't perfect ... and her creations even less so.