Partial Birth Abortion: ARI vs. Ayn Rand

Yes, and Fred is giving the secular version of it....

Post 101

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 7:48pm

Phil Osborn: ... the legal system could do God's work, in spite of the moral evasion.

Absent "God" Objectivists have a more convoluted way to say the same thing. Human institutions of criminal justice enforce the operation of moral law, though moral law -- and the operation of moral law -- is supposed to be objective, i.e, in and of the universe, like mathematics.

The steel mill looked an exercise in geometry. Every girder was put in place to answer a single question: right or wrong?

No court of law is required to second-guess the owner of a steel mill and fine him for failure to appreciate the Pythagorean Theorem or the Parallelogram of Forces.

Post 102

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 8:13pm

Robert and Jon,

The way Dennis posed the original question, he was saying that under my system, the right to a fair trial would be extended even to enemy combatants, implying that they were already recognized as such. Of course, if it isn't obvious that a person is an enemy combatant, and we are in a position to give him a fair trial, then he deserves one.

At any rate, Jon replied,

This position doesn't make sense. If we can "know" whether someone is an enemy combatant prior to a fair trial and therfore a fair trial is unnecessary, how come we can't ever "know" beforehand whether someone is a murderer and also dispense with a fair trial? Or a rapist? Or any other aggressor?

Good question, Jon. In the case of a domestic criminal, like a murderer or rapist, certain people, such as the victim or witnesses, may already know that he is guilty, because they have privileged knowledge of the crime. The purpose of a fair trial is to authenticate their allegations publicly and impartially, so that others can know that the allegations are true. If an accused criminal is arrested and incarcerated without a fair trial, we have no way of knowing if the arrest and conviction are not themselves criminal acts.

Why doesn't this apply to enemy combatants? The answer is that in a war, it's neither necessary nor practical to give an army of enemy combatants who are attacking us a fair trial in order to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that they are in fact enemy combatants who are attacking us. We already know they are, in the same way that the victim of a mugging knows that his attacker is trying to rob him. He doesn't have to give the mugger a fair trial before defending himself against the attack.

Of course, if we are dealing with an individual in our own country who is suspected of being an agent of a foreign government intent on committing some act of espionage, then yes, we would have to prove in a court of law that he is guilty before sentencing him.

The purpose of a criminal trial is not to fundamentally to ascertain a person's guilt or innocence. The purpose of a criminal trial is to require the government to publicly prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt (this is why the verdict is always "guilty" or "not guilty", and not "guilty" or "innocent").

Okay, I concede that your formulation is a more precise statement of the purpose of a trial. We are trying to prove -- which is what I meant by "ascertain" -- the guilt or innocence of the accused (beyond a reasonable doubt). If you prefer "not guilty" to "innocent," fine; I regard these terms as meaning the same thing. If a person is judged "not guilty," then he is judged "innocent." That's what "not guilty" means; it means "innocent."

Now you may wish to argue that since the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty, we haven't "proved" that he's innocent; we've simply "failed to prove" that he's guilty. I understand this distinction, but I don't think its captured by substituting "not guilty" for "innocent." A definite judgment has been rendered, and the judgment is that the person didn't commit the crime, which is equivalent to judging him innocent of it. You could make the same argument against using the term "not guilty" that you've made against using the term "innocent," i.e., that you haven't "proved" a negative -- you haven't proved that he's not guilty; you've simply "failed to prove" a positive -- to prove that he is guilty. So, in my view, it makes no substantive difference whether you use the term "innocent" or the term "not guilty" to describe the jury's failure to find the defendant guilty. Both terms have the same meaning.

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 5/31, 8:28pm)

Post 103

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:22pm

Ah, but what if, say, they came to my door and whisked me away, and labled me an 'enemy combatant' and incarcarated me without charging me, for indefinite time - how to know whether is true or not, how to fight that.. and yes, they DO have , and have used it, that power...

Post 104

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 10:05pm

Fred, do you consider it improper to terminate the life of a fetus, simply because one does not wish to bear a child, before it has developed the neural capacity to be animate - to move and feel?

Ted

Post 105

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 7:19am

Bill: "A definite judgment has been rendered, and the judgment is that the person didn't commit the crime, which is equivalent to judging him innocent of it."

That's not true, Bill, though that's a widespread belief. Legally, however, judging a person "not guilty" is not equivalent to judging him "innocent." A verdict of "not guilty" merely means that the government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant didn't really commit the crime.

In other words, there might be evidence to believe the defendant committed the act, but the evidence the government presented didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt he committed the act. The evidence doesn't rise to the level of certainty (proof beyond a reasonable doubt)--which means the defendant must be free to go.

Another way to view this issue to understand that criminal defense lawyers often don't even try to show that their clients didn't commit the acts with which they've been charged. The lawyers merely try to show that the prosecution's evidence doesn't exclude the reasonable possibility that someone else did it. If a lawyer can plant that seed of reasonable doubt, the law mandates that the jury render a "not guilty" verdict.

In a sense, it's the government that's always on trial, so as to protect Americans from capricious or vindictive government officials, whom the Founding Fathers feared more than ordinary criminals (which applies to accusing people of being enemy combatants as well as murderers, rapists, etc.)

Post 106

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 9:35am

I don't know how enemy combatants got into this, but they are NOT the same, either in our law, or under our constitution, nor should they be the same, as criminals. This is because our government is not there to protect citizen's of other governments that are at war with us, but the opposite. In civil society, a member of our citizenry accused of a crime should be afforded the rights we have set up in order to protect us from abuses of power. However, the soldiers sent to kill us and destroy the government which is designed to protect us do not deserve nor do they receive the same rights!

Also - I think Fred's argument is pretty solid.

Post 107

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 10:41am

What Kurt said.

There IS a difference between a U.S. citizen ( a rarely used, but most relevent concept and term in this context) and a non-citizen.

LLAP
J:D

Post 108

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 11:08am

Jon:

Don't worry, Fred. It doesn't do any real damage to Objectivism. At worst, it frustrates conservatives who are attracted to Ayn Rand's defense of free markets but can't shake their rationalistic method.

Is my deep, deep frustration really shining through? Jesus, I thought I had that totally under wraps.

Yes, considerations of purely 'time' or purely 'space' in a universe objectively comprised of both are indeed rationalizations for something, usually lifestyle crimped by the consequences of our very own actions. I tried to use it as a rationalization to cut someone off at the knees, others use it as a rationalization to cut someone off, period.    "But, they're not someone yet(temporal bias), and as well, they are not jsut their legs below their knees(spatial bias), yes, I know, yes, I knew al ong, long time time ago. You don't have to agree for me to sleep at night.

But, I figured this out the very first time I read Rand, back in July of '69: if I'm required to simply parrot Rand on 100% of everything in order to jarringly Join The Rand Collective, as if I, too, didn't get her, then please, burn my card before the ink dries and I'll gladly turn in my decoder ring as well, all without consequence.    I've always valued education over instruction, just can't help myself.

Oh, those wascally conservatives. Yet the inherent symmetry in the Universe is always surprising.  For example, I wonder how frustrated they were in '80 when they voted for Clark and got Reagan instead, but still left the Libertarian party because it had been rendered forever fringe by the Dope&Sodomy brigade, attracted by something other than simply defense of free markets, like those one dimensional conservatives?

I wonder which event frustrated them more?   Because truth be known, only the conservatives in that convergence could have been frustrated. One must be actually coherent and in command of ones faculties and not on a perpetual buzz to be aware of or frustrated about anything, and not simply burping through life with little X's perpetually drawn over where one's eyes should be.

I apologize in advance. I didn't want to confusingly mention 'Libertarian' in the context of 'Objectivism' and start one of those fringe splinter turf wars of some kind. Hey, I used to be a Libertarian.   And now, hey, apparently I used to be an Objectivist, too, but I've been outed as a bible thumping conservative by the jarring Membership Committee, in spite of not a single hint of religious nonsense in my argument.    In truth, I am a devout non-aligned agnostic theist, who concluded on his own that, at the very least, I was created by the Universe as it is.    (Thank God for me there is no actual church, or I'd probably be outed by the True Believer Keepers of the Gate for that Mob as well, and kicked out of it, too.)

regards,
Fred

Post 109

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 11:21am

Teresa:

Radiation therapy wipes out cancer, is that bad too?
Cancer exists in the universe. It has a biological "role."

What life of another, anywhere in any subset of space in time, does radiation treatment wipe out? In fact, it is an attempt to preserve individual life.

Phlegm has a biological role. I often blow my nose with impunity into a kleenex, and throw it away without so much as a second thought.

Neither radiation therapy nor blowing my nose obliterates the existence of another individual anywhere in the universe as it is, and as importantly to my argument, neither contributes to granting a philosophical license to the Tribe to obliterate the existence of any individual, which the Tribe has shown an alrming talent at doing by the tens of millions when so encouraged.

I don't know that Rand was blind to the consequences of her position on this. She might have been, or she might have weighed the cost differently, but that is moot.

regards,
Fred

Post 110

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 11:52am

I wrote: "A definite judgment has been rendered, and the judgment is that the person didn't commit the crime, which is equivalent to judging him innocent of it."

Jon replied,

That's not true, Bill, though that's a widespread belief. Legally, however, judging a person "not guilty" is not equivalent to judging him "innocent." A verdict of "not guilty" merely means that the government failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, not that the defendant didn't really commit the crime.

You're right. I now see that I cannot even say that in the jury's judgment, the defendant "didn't commit the crime." All I can say is that in its judgment, there is insufficient proof that he did commit the crime. Thanks for pointing this out. I stand corrected.

What I was trying to say in my follow-up post is that the purpose of a trial is to determine if there is enough evidence to prove the defendant guilty, rather than enough evidence to prove him not guilty. So an acquittal does not mean proving the defendant "not guilty" any more than it means proving him "innocent." What it does mean is a judgment that there isn't enough evidence to prove him guilty. In other words, there's a difference between a verdict that involves not judging the defendant "guilty," and one which involves judging him "not guilty." An acquittal involves the former but not the latter. So, in this respect, it makes no difference whether you use the term "innocent" or the term "not guilty." Both mean the same thing.

What you are saying, however, is that a "not-guilty verdict" simply means a judgment that there is insufficient evidence to prove the defendant guilty, not that there is sufficient evidence to prove him not guilty. This is an important point, and one which simply pronouncing the defendant "not guilty" can sometimes obscure.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 6/01, 12:30pm)

Post 111

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 11:55am

Kurt: "I don't know how enemy combatants got into this, but they are NOT the same, either in our law, or under our constitution, nor should they be the same, as criminals. This is because our government is not there to protect citizen's of other governments that are at war with us, but the opposite. In civil society, a member of our citizenry accused of a crime should be afforded the rights we have set up in order to protect us from abuses of power. However, the soldiers sent to kill us and destroy the government which is designed to protect us do not deserve nor do they receive the same rights!"

In other words, we should just take the word of government officials, who never let their own private agendas affect their public decision-making, that X is an "enemy combatant" and therefore not entitled to traditional jurisprudence? We're not just talking about soliders here, of course. We're talking about anyone who's accused of conspiracy as well. I'll leave it to more rational people to discern what the Founding Fathers would have thought about that idea.

Kurt: "Also - I think Fred's argument is pretty solid."

Do you? I wonder why Ayn Rand didn't think of it.

Galt save us from political conservatives who think Ayn Rand was one of them.

Post 112

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 12:05pm

Ted:

Fred, do you consider it improper to terminate the life of a fetus, simply because one does not wish to bear a child, before it has developed the neural capacity to be animate - to move and feel?

The key word is "improper." That is a jail term shy of a parking ticket.   Yes, I consider it "improper."

I consider it improper to not accept the consequences of ones actions without resorting to obliterating the existence of another to fix the problem.

I consider it improper to enter into activity which might ultimately lead to the requirement of considering doing something improper as well, unless one was prepared to accept the alternative consequences should that happen and refrain from the improper consequence.   We should be prepared to pay our own bills of existence without obliterating the existence of others.   That is nothing remotely like lancing a boil or blowing our nose or radiating a tumor.   It is rationalization to compare an unfurling DNA process, the very foundation of that which makes us 'us', to boils, fingernails, tumors, snot, or even sperm and eggs apart.  That is is just rationalization for obliterating the Universe's newest miraculous Individual, whose DNA process has already started unfurling, and the Tribe has taken note.   Note how much of the Tribe can simultaneously advocate the environmental rights of unborn future generations, and actually point real guns at real individuals to enforce those rights, yet believe that the slightly less hypothetical members of same who are the merely conceived have no rights whatsoever.   (!!!!!!!!)   That should give you pause.    What is the defining difference which permits that glaring contradiction?  Where do the rights go? Only members of Mobs/Groups have rights. Individuals have no rights. The Tribe is totally consistent, and Objectivists inadvertently support them in this nonsense by backing Rand's position on abortion.   Abortion is Rand's lost opportunity to face down the mob.

I consider it improper to give the Tribe so much philosophical license by holding on to just this one glaring contradiction, and rationalizing it.

If we want to own our own car, then we should own it, and don't drive it blindly down the street. Ditto our own bodies.    We are responsible for the lives we impact with our ownership. We are not prohibited from repairing our cars or decorating them with impunity. We should be prohibited from inviting others into the street and then driving over them as part of either our deep psychological need to drive or the convenience of not having to drive around them.

If we are really different than rutting animals, who rut without consequence and are purely biologically driven then we should be different than rutting animals, accept responsibility for our ownership, and above all, not rationalize behaviour that inflicts great philosophical damage in the war between the Tribe/mob/others and the Individual. Otherwise, we are just clever animals with sharper sticks and better rationalizations at scratching that unreachable itch.

But Ted, I believe that now, after the universe as it is educated me on the topic. There was a time that I did not.   2nd kid later in life, CVS with obvious implication, test was fine, then Williams Syndrome, lifetime sentence...and, Jesus was I wrong. My preemptive actions were based totally on fear/ignorance, never a good thing.   The Universe as it is smacked me up the side of my clueless ass. I accidentally didn't participate in the obliteration of one of the greatest joys in my existence. But, that was my lesson from the Universe, not The lesson from the Universe. That is why I could never advocate a legislative/gun to the head state provided answer for all on this issue. That, and my religious beliefs. I believe I was created, at the very least, by the Universe as it is, and the Universe, as it is, is perfectly able to communicate its lessons directly to me, without the need for interpretation by middlemen wearing funny hats or other ultimately mere politicos wielding guns at me.

No, what I object to is the philosophical damage this stand on abortion does to Rand's Objectivism, which would otherwise, to me, be a cogent defense against the Mob. As it is, for me, if nobody else, there is a gaping hole in it.   It grants a license to 'others' that 'others' should not have in a sane universe, and that is, in the face of a conflict brought into existence through the actions of 'others', 'others' are permitted to serve as exclusive judge, jury, executioner, abortionist, rationalizer in the cleanup of their self-imposed conflict with the universe's newest Individual. This is exactly, precisely the license that the Tribe needs to place a gold ribbon on its naked aggression.

The Universe, though insane some of it yet might be, it is still a miracle..

regards,
Fred

Post 113

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 12:47pm

Fred,

I hesitate to enter into this discussion you are having with Jon, but after reading several of your posts, all I can gather is that you are throwing more heat than light on this issue. You are a witty and entertaining guy to read, but I'm still searching for the logic in your argument. Are you saying that abortion is never justified -- that it necessarily involves a violation of individual rights?

In order to make that case, wouldn't you have to show that a zygote or an embryo possesses the characteristics that qualify it as a rights-bearing entity? The mere fact that it is of human origin and will eventually develop those characteristics does not prove that at that stage of its development, it already possesses them.

So what, then, is your argument?

- Bill

Post 114

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:07pm

Jon:

Do you? I wonder why Ayn Rand didn't think of it.

????

I must plead ignorance. Can you actually point me to the page where she actually says, "Surrender your mind to me, my little Cult Worshipping Xerox machine, you will never actually have a need for it ever again?"

Maybe in her earlier works, she would have said "mimeograph machines.' Clearly, in her later works, 'Xerox' could have been her preferred metaphor for 'accept only my instruction uncritically without thinking, and spend the rest of your one and only life quoting me to folks who already agree with you. To save time, you should use numbers, like "JohnGalt3:16", and pretend to feel superior to mere Bible Thumpers.

I mean, she's been dead, what, twenty years?

Fortunately, unable to actually spin in her grave.

regards,
Fred

Post 115

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:12pm

Fred, I think here we part ways. I hold that persons have individual rights. Neither a sperm, a fertilized egg, nor an inanimate (pre-quickening) fetus can be considered a person. Certainly an individual human entity developing into a person, but not a person, not yet.

To throw your space / time analogy back at you, could you not say then that one should not kill animals because they may evolve into sentient beings if given the chance?

I happen to like children, and find abortion aesthetically displeasing under any circumstances. But no person, no harm, no foul. I cannot see how first trimester abortion is harming any person.

Ted

Post 116

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:44pm

Jon said:

We're not just talking about soliders here, of course. We're talking about anyone who's accused of conspiracy as well. I'll leave it to more rational people to discern what the Founding Fathers would have thought about that idea.

Actually - what are you talking about, exactly? Pardon me as I truly have not read this whole thread and may have missed the context. Conspiracy is a crime that is not related to enemy combatants that I am aware of. I was talking about the people we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against our troops, or the like. If their status is in doubt the court will have to make a ruling on it - which has been taking place as far as I know.

Post 117

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 1:52pm

Fred obviously believes in life having intrinsic value - any life, including one not yet human [which he, in his ignorance of biology, insists IS human]...

Post 118

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 2:05pm

Bill: "I hesitate to enter into this discussion you are having with Jon, but after reading several of your posts, all I can gather is that you are throwing more heat than light on this issue. You are a witty and entertaining guy to read, but I'm still searching for the logic in your argument."

Bill, you can feel free to take over the discussion with Fred if you like. I said in my last post that I was bowing out of it, and I meant it. His posts seemed to get more and more detached from reality as it went on (especially in light of his absurd last post, in which he posits that I've surrendered my mind to AR because I said I wondered why she, a philosophical genius, never considered Fred's "argument" on such a serious issue).

I'll also say I have no clue about what you mean when you say he's "witty and entertaining" to read. Has he written something else I'm not aware of?

Kurt: "Actually - what are you talking about, exactly? Pardon me as I truly have not read this whole thread and may have missed the context. Conspiracy is a crime that is not related to enemy combatants that I am aware of. I was talking about the people we captured in Iraq and Afghanistan fighting against our troops, or the like. If their status is in doubt the court will have to make a ruling on it - which has been taking place as far as I know."

I'm talking about people being held by the government as "enemy combatants." Many of them weren't captured fighting against US troops. They've been accused by government officials of aiding and abetting people who have killed Americans in some way, or on suspicion they know some key information, and on that basis are held indefinitely without any legal counsel or trial. That's what the whole fracas over Gitmo is about, Kurt.

(Edited by Jon Trager
on 6/01, 4:16pm)

Post 119

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 2:13pm