| |
Bill, don't you see that aborting an embryo is of the same kind as "aborting" a person without arms or a person with an IQ of 70? Don't you see that limbs and degree of intelligence are essential to this issue, and not whether or not what's aborted is a physically separate being in contact with the world and possessing its own conceptual faculty? What's wrong with you, man?!
Bill, don't you see that a physically separate being only means R3, and we can ignore R-Time when jarringly using words like "physically"? An entire objective dimension of existence, wiped off the map when it is too difficult to comprehend or is otherwise inconvenient. Is that what is jarringly worshipped in the wake of Rand's shadow? A denial of the universe as it is?
If R4 is too much of a strain to comprehend in the universe as it is, and R3 is better, then Bill, can't you see that R2 would be better still, and R1 pretty damn near nirvana? Whats next? Can consonants be ignored? Let's run an experiment and see:
i, o' ou ee a aoi a eo i o e ae i a "aoi" a eo iou a o a eo i a I o? o' ou ee a i a eee o ieiee ae eeia o i iue, a o ee o o a' aoe i a ia eaae ei i oa i e o a oei is o oeua au? a's o i ou, a?!
Hmmm. Damn. At least in this instance, consonants can in fact be ignored. Same information, fewer bits = higher bandwidth. I'll have to run some more experiments. In the meantime...
Bill, I'll take your kindly advice and bone up on my instruction. I'll also watch and learn. So far, it looks like some of the great masters here do the same thing that the entire In-ter-net does. My job in life is not to help anyone pretend otherwise:
1] Throw uncomfortable concepts into a blender and selectively spew them back, only, askance, never directly. Like, drive by graffitti sprayed on a wall somewhere. Which is why, "Bill", my response to "Jon" above is jarringly directed at "Bill". Is that how it is done here, Bill? Not really a question, because objectively, Bill,. that is apparently how it is done here. Check.
2] Fail to face argument that we simply disagree with head on, and instead:
3] Criticise form and spelling when all else fails.
4] Regurgitate formulaic instruction from things precisely like John3:16, as if all of life was mere instruction, while jarringly criticising 'bible thumpers' for their rote regurgitation of mere instruction.
5] Claim "I can't understand you" when what you simply mean is, "I don't agree with you" or better yet "Too many words!" which is a community college night course away from "Too many consonants!" Look, its not like we all get a little 'word' meter that expires when it rolls over, or else one pass through AS and we'd be hosed. Do what I do: scroll. Do it now, you're not missing anything. I'll let you know if my being is obliterated from existence as a result.
I've made some naked assertions on this topic, which are apparently wildly speculative and impossible to comprehend, but I can live with that. I apparently need to 'justify' the validity of one of the following naked assertions, because unlike the author I adore but diagree with on this one issue, I didn't write with a large enough crayon the first 28 times I consistently repeated the same thing:
1] Our individual DNA process is continuous from conception to birth. It has no existence prior to conception, and terminates at death as a prerequisite for our life as an individual in this universe as it is. In between, there is no arbitrary break in it in time, it is a continuous process in which every successive realization of an individual is 100% dependent upon the previous stage of the process. I made this up.
2] Whatever we can and should be beyond mere DNA processing is yet 100% dependent on it as a prerequisite for our life. It is , in fact, to the best of my knowledge in this universe as it is, the foundation of our life. Not in a fundamental way that mere 'matter' or 'atoms' or 'molecules' are a foundation; the universe as it is is filled with that. But moot, because 'we' aren't even the same atoms and molecules that 'we' were ten years ago, even as 'we' persist. What objectively persists as 'us' is that DNA process. If 'matter' is the basis for the defense of individual rights, then we are all one, Kumbaya. But in the specific subset of that which has begun a process that determines 'you' and 'me' as individuals; it is the process that 'you' must be before 'you' can be 'you.' No objective process, no 'you', no matter what you are beyond mere objective process, but that would be a religious argument, which would be surprising coming from an Objectivist. You might well be a rational, intelligent, soul filled with deep psychological needs and yet all of that is objectively not possible(or objectively demonstrable)without first your right to your cold process. Or, it's objectively the other way around: we first need to have deep psychological needs, and then we can be.
3] That process occupies a finite continuum of space and time that is not discontinuous in any dimension of R4. Wild stuff. Humans are not like Fulton County, KY, or else I could cut them off at the knees without consequence, and I introduce random, incoherent, meaningless tangents to torture folks, not amuse either myself or others.
4] That process comes into existence through the factual actions of others, whether intentionally or not. It certainly doesn't come about through the intentions of the process. Crazy talk.
5] Any conflict brought about by the existence of that process is the responsibility of those who caused the realization of the conflict, ie, 'other(s).' A madman. What would the world be like if we advocated such responsibility? I mean, what couldn't we get away with?
6] Abortion is not contraception. Conception/pregnancy has already occurred when an abortion must be considered. No, abortion is the ultimate contraception, the one that can travel backwards in time, once again an allowed subset of R4.
7] Is a sentient, intelligent being destroyed in R4 when the deliberate act of abortion is performed? It can be rationalized, but my background is science/engineering, not politics. So, while the politicos are applying their perfect rhetoric, I'll run a cold objective reproducible thought experiment. Feel free to reproduce my results. Take 6 billion pregnant moms. Randomly pick half of them, and abort them. Do nothing with the control 3 billion. Come back in 9 months, and see what 99% of the control moms have in their arms, and 0% of the aborted moms have in their arms. You picked them at random. Is it a reasonable objective conclusion that your actions on the first group has factually resulted in the obliteration of the existence in R4 of that which the control group now holds in its arms? No, that is unreasonable non objective interpretation of the experimental results; I just picked the right 3 billion at random.
8] Sex is more than an attempt at procreation does not obliterate the biological consequences of sex out of the universe as it is. Sex can be purely recreational/psychological if we competently practice contraception. But an unwanted/unintended conception->pregnancy->infant is a failure to competently convert our will into reality in the universe as it is. The failure is ours, the conflict is our responsibility, and the ethical solution should not be the obliteration from R4 of the existence of another, not on religious grounds, not on moral grounds, but on the basis of a sober evaluation of the costs/benefit to our self-interest. Promoting/condoning "abortion as hand washing" in fact fails to defend the concept of individual rights, and empowers 'others' over our lives in the face of conflict brought about by others. No. Others should pay for my literal f'ups, with their existence in R4 if necessary.
9] A solution to this self-imposed conflict proposed by 'other(s)' which includes the obliteration in that R4 continuum of the existence of an individual in the face of 4] or 5] is, "improper" ... "unethical" and most importantly, more damaging to our self-interests before we fail than it is supportive of our self-interests after we fail, especially when it is 'justified' based on any whim whatsoever, including the mere convenience of the 'other(s)'. It is more damaging to our self-interests precisely because of the license that it gives the Tribe, which is, a gold ribbon for its naked aggression against individuals based on any whim whatsoever. Only groups have rights, not individuals, and Objectivists support that idea by, in this one area, squirming to equivocate on the definition of 'individual' to rationalize just this one glaring contradiction. Said squirming to include, denial of our existence, as it is, as a continuum in R4.
No, in fact, Objectivists object mightily to this glaring contradiction, just not in so many words, and, in fact, not in fact.
regards,
Fred
|
|
Fred, just to clarify, most of those spontaneous abortions occur as a failure to implant or as a failure to prevent menstruation due to some developmental or genetic defect in the fertilized egg or embryo. Most of the time, the woman is unaware she has conceived or maybe she has a late period. 