[an error occurred while processing this directive]
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 6Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 8, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 6:36pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Even though I am an advocate of men being good parents to their children, I completely understand this young mans stance. I was also placed in this very position when I was only 23. I told my daughters mother, in no uncertain circumstances, that I was not ready to be a father. She did just as the woman in this story. She assured me that she was taking birth control, and would not get pregnant.Three whole months later she came to me and told me she was pregnant.
   It took me several years, but I got her to admit that she did it on purpose. So that I would stay around, and stay with her. That only lasted 4 years. I couldn't live with her any longer, knowing how decietful she was.
   Seventeen years later I wouldn't have it any other way. My daughter is my first true love.
   Men are not given any choice in this matter most of the time. We find women we beleive we can trust, and find out later were mistaken, and now have to live with our mistakes. And then we are forced to give our hard earned money to those women, that are willing to decieve us, for a minimum of 18 years.
   I really do wish this young man all the luck in the world. Maybe he will succeed where no other man has, and it will be a warning to all those women in the country that wish to decieve the men they claim to love.




Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 14, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 10:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I'm wondering why Bill thinks flat out fraud needs to be involved in order for the law to consider a man's choice in the matter. If a young man is smart enough to tell a young women he's not interested in being a father, under any circumstance, and she's still willing to have sex with him without fool proof protection, I think he ought to have an out should conception occur. Period. If a woman is still willing to have sex with a man who's clearly not interested in having a child with her, how dare she drag him into that life long obligation in spite of it. I think it's bullshit.

Any woman who holds a mere conception to higher standard of value than the actual man who supplied the fertilization, and then drag that conception out to it's logical ends in order to dangle it in front of the law, as if she's taken the moral high ground in the eyes of the law somehow, has clearly got a screw loose somewhere.

A change in the law would force women to be more responsible, as they should, because women have all the control.

My husband's great-niece got pregnant when she was 17, but didn't tell her parents until she was over 6 months into it (terrified, no doubt). Her parents are forcing this girl's boyfriend, another 17 year old, into incredible servitude over this, as if it were all his fault.  He's fucking 17!!  How much do you think this kid can make a week??  He had to quit high school and get two jobs. They refused to let their daughter quit school, or even work part time after school. She gets to go to college now.  That boy can't go to college, he has to work!  It's crap, I'm telling you!  




Post 22

Saturday, March 11, 2006 - 11:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks Teresa.

This is the perfect point for someone to chime in and say, "But the baby needs him!"



Post 23

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:13amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa wrote,
I'm wondering why Bill thinks flat out fraud needs to be involved in order for the law to consider a man's choice in the matter. If a young man is smart enough to tell a young women he's not interested in being a father, under any circumstance, and she's still willing to have sex with him without fool proof protection, I think he ought to have an out should conception occur. Period. If a woman is still willing to have sex with a man who's clearly not interested in having a child with her, how dare she drag him into that life long obligation in spite of it. I think it's bullshit.
I agree, Teresa, and realized after I wrote that post that I was not being clear and in fact contradicted myself, because I added, "But what if she simply forgot to take her birth control pills? In that event, she should properly have gotten an abortion, unless of course she was morally opposed to it, in which case, she cannot demand that her partner assume responsibility for raising the child. The child then becomes her responsibility." But I wasn't consistent, because I then argued that the father's case hinges on his being able to prove that the woman mislead him, which of course it does not. This was simply a case of not clearly sorting out the issues before writing about them.
Any woman who holds a mere conception to higher standard of value than the actual man who supplied the fertilization, and then drag that conception out to it's logical ends in order to dangle it in front of the law, as if she's taken the moral high ground in the eyes of the law somehow, has clearly got a screw loose somewhere.

A change in the law would force women to be more responsible, as they should, because women have all the control.

My husband's great-niece got pregnant when she was 17, but didn't tell her parents until she was over 6 months into it (terrified, no doubt). Her parents are forcing this girl's boyfriend, another 17 year old, into incredible servitude over this, as if it were all his fault. He's fucking 17!! How much do you think this kid can make a week?? He had to quit high school and get two jobs. They refused to let their daughter quit school, or even work part time after school. She gets to go to college now. That boy can't go to college, he has to work! It's crap, I'm telling you!
True, but the problem is that we live in a society that is not entirely sympathetic to abortion, so it's often not recognized that unless the woman secures the consent of the father to have the child, she is responsible either for aborting it or for raising it herself. Another problem is that, in many cases, it may be difficult to prove that the father didn't consent to support the child and that he didn't simply get cold feet when he realized how much responsibility it was. How do you prove what his intentions were at the time of conception or during some point in the pregnancy (e.g., the first trimester) during which abortion is considered acceptable? He can lie; she can lie; and there may simply be no way to sort out the truth when you're talking about something as subjective as someone's intentions at a particular point in time. Short of a written contract, it may be impossible. In that case, the law is inclined to hold both parents responsible for the child's welfare.

- Bill




Post 24

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 12:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If one of the partners is proven to consistently lie, and the other is proven to consistently tell the truth, then one's words can be as good as contract.



Post 25

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 6:43amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
True, but the problem is that we live in a society that is not entirely sympathetic to abortion, so it's often not recognized that unless the woman secures the consent of the father to have the child, she is responsible either for aborting it or for raising it herself. Another problem is that, in many cases, it may be difficult to prove that the father didn't consent to support the child and that he didn't simply get cold feet when he realized how much responsibility it was.
Bill, you're absolutely right. It was late, I was tired, and possibly grumpy. I should have re-read your post first.
 
(Dean, you're killing me! LOL! March is national "Get Over It" month <g>)




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 26

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 10:20amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, gee Teresa, I hate to disagree with you on my being right and your being wrong, but I'm afraid I'm going to have to, because you're absolutely wrong about my being right and your being wrong, and I'm absolutely right about my being wrong and your being right. Tired and grumpy notwithstanding, you caught me in a contradiction, so don't try to weasel out of it! :)

- Bill



Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 27

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aaron wrote:

Sage advice, but easier said than done. Very few urologists will perform a vasectomy on someone who's not over a certain age, married and who's already bred a couple times. If you're under 25 and childless, good luck finding someone willing to perform one.
Luke commented:
Is this based on a personal search, young buck, or on empirical studies?  In any case, I am not terribly surprised.  They will not do it for married men without the written consent of their wives, either.  As far as I know, a woman can get an abortion without permission of her husband, however.  Does this strike anyone else as a double standard?
Not me. The parallel would actually be vasectomies and tubal ligations, which are both operations that surgically block one's ability to deliver sexual reproductive cells to those of one's sexual partner for fertilization. Both of these operations should be legal, though it should also be the perogative of the physician as to whether to perform it for a given person.

If marriages were actual written contracts, with such things explicitly spelled out, spouses could legally hold each other to having or not having such operations -- or to re-negotiating the terms of their marital contract -- or to dissolving the marriage, if no agreement could be maintained, and the potential problems or disappointments were sufficiently severe as to be unacceptable to one or both partners.

As for Luke's question: because the process of post-fertilization reproduction is very non-symmetrical, there really is no good parallel right for men that mirrors a woman's right to abortion. In my opinion, however, there is a fairly well discernable boundary point that ought to be a good sorting basis for many of these issues of responsibility for support and permissibility of abortion.

It has been well established (for 30 years or so now) that "brain birth" and physical viability of fetuses is accomplished by the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy. At that point, we have a creature that is just as well brain developed and able to survive outside the mother's body as the premature babies whose status as human beings and whose rights to life are already recognized by law. Thus, a third-trimester fetus, who is capable of independent existence outside the mother's body, but is not yet in fact outside the mother's body, also ought to be recognized as human and protected by law. (I think this was also addressed in Roe v. Wade.) 

Because of this, I think that third-trimester abortions should be outlawed, except when the mother's life is in danger. Husbands or committed fathers would certainly be legally entitled -- not to mention, morally obliged -- to call upon the government to intervene if his mate were to try to destroy a fetus that was capable of being born into the world.

Prior to the third trimester, however, I think the legal decisions about abortion are entirely the woman's. The fetus has not yet begun the operation of its rational faculty (which takes in sense data and forms percepts that are later integrated into concepts), a process that only begins after the second trimester of fetal development. (Brain scans of fetuses and observation of premature babies bear this out.) So, there is no human being (qua being with a functioning rational faculty) to intervene on behalf of. Hence, no third-party defense rights for male partners or government during the first two trimesters of pregnancy. (Again, Roe v. Wade is consistent with this view.)

The situation that got this whole discussion started is a really egregious case. There is no doubt in my mind that women who fraudulently entrap men into impregnating them deserve no financial assistance, period. It's too bad that the babies (if they carry them to term) have to suffer -- but then, maybe there should be a law saying that babies conceived through fraud on the part of the mother are to become wards of the state and placed for adoption. Such a mother has certainly proved at the outset that she is morally unfit to be a mother. The only question is whether it could be established that she was an objective danger to the well-being of the child, considering her callousness in creating the child and its helpless state through an act of fraud.

Interesting stuff to chew on.

REB 




Post 28

Sunday, March 12, 2006 - 8:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
http://home.hamptonroads.com/stories/story.cfm?story=100574&ran=227137

Ugh.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 29

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 12:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Aw, jeez, Teresa. That is a travesty/tragedy, that story you linked us to.

Arguing to let that woman off the hook because she shot and killed her own fetus rather than someone else's makes about as much sense as exempting pregnant women from the laws requiring two passengers when driving in a carpool lane.

arrrrgh (mournfully),
reb




Post 30

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 5:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
REB wrote:

The parallel would actually be vasectomies and tubal ligations, which are both operations that surgically block one's ability to deliver sexual reproductive cells to those of one's sexual partner for fertilization. Both of these operations should be legal, though it should also be the perogative of the physician as to whether to perform it for a given person. ...  As for Luke's question: because the process of post-fertilization reproduction is very non-symmetrical, there really is no good parallel right for men that mirrors a woman's right to abortion.

I will buy that.




Post 31

Monday, March 13, 2006 - 7:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Roger, when I think of the impossible wasteland that's substituting for this woman's mind, it just makes me ill. What kind of overwhelming ignorance it must be not to know she could simply turn the baby over to hospital officials for adoption?
Turns out she's crazy religious too, went to her baby daughter's funeral, and danced in the isle during the service.
She needs an institution, not prison.




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 32

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 2:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, there are women who, on principle, would rather kill a baby they don't want that is near-term (say 8th month, with a partial-birth abortion), rather than "submit" to a Caesarean or natural delivery in order to allow the survivable baby to live. This is what passes for "principled" advocacy among die-hard pro-choice advocates. Arrrgh.

Isn't it ironic: the same reasoning that is used to justify killing a near-term fetus that is CAPABLE of surviving independently of the mother's body and COULD survive independently given a fairly brief medical procedure -- that same reasoning could be used to justify killing a sleeping man who is CAPABLE of engaging in rational thought and COULD engage in rational thought given a brief period to wake up.

Moral: don't fall asleep at Planned Parenthood!  Or in the homes of some Objectivists and Libertarians.  :-/

REB




Post 33

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 6:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Teresa, there are women who, on principle, would rather kill a baby they don't want that is near-term (say 8th month, with a partial-birth abortion), rather than "submit" to a Caesarean or natural delivery in order to allow the survivable baby to live. This is what passes for "principled" advocacy among die-hard pro-choice advocates. Arrrgh.
Unspeakable insanity, IMO.

And for the record, I've never found a crack in your long held and published opinion on the matter. Planned Parenthood aside, only those cultures throughout history with the worst record of human understanding would sanction such a thing. It'll never gain my vote.
It's difficult for me to think Rand would sanction it either. 




Post 34

Tuesday, March 14, 2006 - 6:45pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
given a fairly brief medical procedure

In other words - it really ISN'T in survivable mode.....




Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 35

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 12:41amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I previously wrote:
given a fairly brief medical procedure
Robert Malcom opined:
In other words - it really ISN'T in survivable mode.....
No more or less than is the man sleeping soundly in rational mode. Both the sleeping man and the late-term fetus can be brought to actuality (actual rational functioning and actual physical individuality) in a matter of minutes.

So, "in other words," a late-term fetus is just as "surviv-able" (or individualiz-able) as a sleeping man is "rational-able."

Robert, we are talking about 8th and 9th month fetuses that are BETTER developed cognitively and BETTER able to survive as individuals outside the mother's body than even younger prematurely born fetuses.

I don't know your position on "equal protection under the law," but it would seem a straightforward exercise of logic that well-developed, near-term fetuses ought to receive the same legal protection already provided to less-well-developed, prematurely born babies.

And Teresa, thank you for your supportive comments. I know Robert is just trying to "dot the i" on the logic of the discussion, but there are plenty of folks out there who really are out to lunch on the issue of third-trimester abortion. And you are very right that Rand would (and did) agree that there is a serious question about a fetus's rights in the third trimester, unlike the earlier stages of pregnancy.

Now that I think of it, it would be a good idea to post some of my recent thoughts on that issue (since it pertains to Rand's various quoted comments in Ayn Rand Answers). Stay tuned.

REB




Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 36

Wednesday, March 15, 2006 - 2:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK, the following three posts from SoloHq, November 2005 present my analysis of Rand's position on late-term abortion. Comments are welcome...REB

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Here is my post from November 4, 2005 (11:50 pm pdt), #10 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

 

In Post 1, Robert Davison wrote:

I found your article well written and cogent.  One small quibble to say that Rand "advocated abortion on demand" is an exaggeration.
A piece of protoplasm has no rights-and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months.-Ayn Rand

In Post 4, Adam Reed commented:

The quote you cite comes from a time when Ayn Rand was still ignorant of key facts about the need for interaction with the environment for the development of consciousness. She later made it clear that abortion at will is an absolute right until the fetus/infant develops an independent consciousness.

And in Post 9, Adam replied to Neil Parille:

Neil, and anyone else inclined to remake Ayn Rand into a ConSymp: Give up. "Ayn Rand Answers" is out, and Ayn Rand's own position is clearly stated on page 64. There are many other opinions in the book that make chopped liver out of any TOC-style compromise with Conservatives.

Speaking of "compromise with Conservatives," wouldn't that include joining them in opposition to partial-birth abortions of late-term fetuses? Surely, that's not something Rand would have done or condoned others doing. Yet, here is what Rand said, in one of her later opinions, as reported in Ayn Rand Answers

...I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute -- when a baby is formed -- is a different issue.)...The basic principles here are: never sacrifice the living to the nonliving, and never confuse an actuality with a potentiality. An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human, it's not a living entity, it has no rights...(Ford Hall Forum QA, 1974, emphasis added)

When Rand was relatively ignorant about fetal development and entertained the idea that an "embryo is perhaps potentially conscious" at about three months into the pregnancy, she suggested (Ford Hall Forum QA, 1967) that "before that point, there is no rational, moral, or semi-humane argument that could be made in favor of forbidding abortion." This remarkable statement implies that she considered the rationality, morality, and humaneness of such arguments to be at least theoretically plausible for the later stages of pregnancy. And her comments from 1974 about "abortion at the last minute" reveal that she had come a long way, indeed, toward acknowledging that late-term fetuses are indeed formed living entities with rights.

And is this really so horrifying or obnoxious a conclusion to come to, considering that premature babies born quite a bit earlier than some victims of partial-birth abortion are nonetheless recognized as having the right to life? If it's obvious that preemies are formed living entities with the right to life, what is the obstacle to acknowledging the same rights for yet-to-be-born fetuses who are even more formed than their premature counterparts?

REB

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Here is my post from November 5, 2005 (11:00 pm pdt), #15 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

 

Adam Reed says that Tibor and I cannot honestly interpret Rand's views as implying an objection to late-term abortion. That is philosophical and rhetorical balderdash!

Interestingly, while I cited Rand's admission that a late-term fetus was a formed individual as being made in 1974, Adam counters by quoting Rand without noting that those comments were made in 1967 and 1969! I am incredulous that Adam, who was discounting Rand's 1960s view on fetal ("embryo") consciousness as being superceded by her later views, is now relying on her earlier views. Just who is engaging in speculation and spin here?

While I will not stoop to Adam's level of rhetoric, I think that HONESTY and FAIRNESS dictates that we give at least equal weight to Rand's LATER COMMENTS, which clearly indicate that she was troubled deeply by the thought that some women would try to justify "last-minute" abortions, "when a baby is formed," and not just those that were "severely defective."

Adam also omits Rand's later comments, from 1973, about the rights of severely retarded individuals. In answer to the question "Do severely retarded individuals have rights?" Rand replied:

Not actual rights -- not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones....[p. 4]

If the severely retarded have the right to be protected like children, then they have that right at the same point that normal children do -- once they are formed and able to be born. Rand's overheated 1969 rhetoric about a "healthy mother" being "made to live for a subnormal, mindless child whom one cannot face is sacrifice and drudgery without a goal" (p. 129) is thankfully moderated 5 years later. Apparently she realized that just as normal babies can be given up for adoption by those unwilling or unable to care for them, so can "subnormal mindless" children -- and that "subnormal mindless" children have human potential, too (as she noted in 1974). Too bad that Adam did not pick up on this development in her sensitivity and thinking.

Again, if premature babies have rights, whether or not they are retarded, then those who are still in the womb but further developed also have rights. And this is so, even though they are still part of their mother's body. The essential factor in whether or not a particular fetus is an individual with rights is not its being no longer part of another's body. It is its no longer being unable to survive without being part of another's body. Once a fetus is capable of survival outside the mother's body, it is, for all intents and purposes, an individual with rights. The only thing that can supercede those rights is the physical survival of the mother, and that hardly ever (never?) necessitates a partial-birth abortion as against a Caesarian delivery. That is why Tibor said, and I agree with him, that partial-birth abortion of late-term fetuses is tantamount to infanticide.

REB

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Here is my post from November 6, 2005 (7:59 pm pdt), #19 on the thread "Article Discussions: Was Ayn Rand a Conservative?" --

 

Adam Reed wrote: 

As I wrote elsewhere, I view Rand's abandonment of the integration of philosophy with the sciences (at some point between 1969 and 1973) as a retrogression and a mistake. By 1974, and possibly some years earlier, Rand had broken contact with Robert Efron, and had no one who could help her ground her assumptions in the facts of cognitive and biological science.

Adam, do you really believe that, without the guidance of a neurophysiologist, Rand was unable to learn of and grasp the concept of “fetal viability”? That is, after all, what she was talking about in her 1974 Ford Hall Forum comments:

I'd like to express my indignation at the idea of confusing a living human being with an embryo, which is only some undeveloped cells. (Abortion at the last minute -- when a baby is formed -- is a different issue.)...The basic principles here are: never sacrifice the living to the nonliving, and never confuse an actuality with a potentiality. An "unborn child," before it's formed, is not a human, it's not a living entity, it has no rights...(Ford Hall Forum QA, 1974, emphasis added)

 Surely, with Rand’s intense interest in the subject, she was well aware of Roe v. Wade, decided by the Supreme Court on January 22, 1973, just months before Rand’s above-quoted remarks about the stage of pregnancy where “a baby is formed.” Surely, she would have read had occasion to read and ponder these passages from the Blackmun majority opinion (emphasis added): 

For the stage subsequent to viability the State, in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life, may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother. Pp. 163-164; 164-165.

 

Most Greek thinkers, on the other hand, commended abortion, at least prior to viability. See Plato, Republic, V, 461; Aristotle, Politics, VII, 1335b 25.

 

As we have noted, the common law found greater significance in quickening. Physicians and their scientific colleagues have regarded that event with less interest and have tended to focus either upon conception, upon live birth, or upon the interim point at which the fetus becomes "viable," that is, potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid. 59 Viability is usually placed at about seven months (28 weeks) but may occur earlier, even at 24 weeks.

 

…the State does have an important and legitimate interest in preserving and protecting the health of the pregnant woman, whether she be a resident of the State or a nonresident who seeks medical consultation and treatment there, and that it has still another important and legitimate interest in protecting the potentiality of human life. These interests are separate and distinct. Each grows in substantiality as the woman approaches term and, at a point during pregnancy, each becomes "compelling."…With respect to the State's important and legitimate interest in potential life, the "compelling" point is at viability. This is so because the fetus then presumably has the capability of meaningful life outside the mother's womb. State regulation protective of fetal life after viability thus has both logical and biological justifications. If the State is interested in protecting fetal life after viability, it may go so far as to proscribe abortion during that period, except when it is necessary to preserve the life or health of the mother. 

Adam writes further:

The fact remains that a statement which specifically addresses the issue in question trumps conjectures from subsequent vagueness. The vagueness is more likely a result of Rand's loss of contact and integration with science. This is a loss of grounding and not a principled change in Rand's position.

Says you, Adam. It's clear to me that Rand’s 1974 position was well grounded and closely paralleled the Supreme Court opinion. And with good reason. The Court, in one of its too infrequent flashes of wisdom actually set up the approximately correct dividing line establishing the right to life of third-trimester fetuses. Rand, to her credit, assimilated this decision and modified her own views accordingly. Nothing vague about her 1974 comments at all.

Adam again: 
 

The facts of reality that grounded Rand's 1969 position start with the classic studies of Held and Hein (1963) which showed that when kittens were prevented from actively exploring the visual world, even though they received the same visual stimulation as their normal counterparts, they failed to develop normal visual perception - and failed to develop the brain structures necessary for perception. But, as Rand often said, to be conscious is to be conscious of something. This requires perception - and perception requires active interaction with objects in the environment, which is not possible until after birth.

This is a gross misinterpretation of Held/Hein (1963). What their study shows is what motor deprivation does for the development of perception after birth. It does not at all establish what Adam claims, namely, that perception does not exist before birth. In fact, as was established in the mid to late 1970s and reported by Stephen Rose in The Conscious Brain and in newspaper articles at the time which interviewed the chief researcher in this area, Dominic Purpura, the fetal brain is already engaging in patterned awareness of reality by about the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy. Late-term fetuses have brain waves essentially like those of premature babies and full-term babies and adults, and essentially unlike those of earlier fetuses. They are not passive little lumps inside the mother’s body. How on earth could you assume that they are not, in albeit limited fashion, engaging in “active interaction” with their environment? They suck their thumbs, they kick out at the mother’s body, they change position at the most embarrassing times (for the mother), etc. Granted, their perceptual awareness is a pale shadow of the richness that awaits them “on the outside,” but they are not cognitive blank slates at birth. It may or may not be true that singing a particular tune over and over to your baby in the womb is etched in the baby’s memory, as some research claims. But at birth, babies hit the ground running – well, so to speak. They are not “tabula rasa.”


Adam, once more:

Once Rand lost touch with Robert Efron, and thus with the grounding of her position in the facts of reality, she did become more vague and uncertain. But the core of Rand's philosophy is primacy of existence - which means that the uncertain Rand of 1974, the Rand who by then lost contact with science, is - to the extent that she changed her position to one less well grounded in the facts of reality - not the true Rand.

I wish the "true Rand" were still alive and could kick your ass for saying that, Adam. There is nothing “vague and uncertain” about her informed views of 1974. The Supreme Court’s views were grounded in reality, and so were Rand’s, and the subsequent findings of Purpura et al only served to more firmly establish that the “bright line” for individual rights is not birth, but the third trimester, when, in Rand's unequivocal words, "a baby is formed."




Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 37

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 4:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I consider sexual intercourse, if not consent, at least awareness of the possibility that a child may be conceived.

If ole' boy was getting his groove on with a woman who's dishonest, that's not the child's problem...or shouldn't be.

"She told me she couldn't get pregnant." or "She told me she was using protection."...
are some weak, whack excuses for a man to b*itch about having to help feed his child.

Issues between the mother and father are secondary to the health and well-being of the child conceived by the two of them
-- who were fine with each other when they were grunting and groaning and getting their good feelings on--
thus, they shouldn't be used as excuses for a man or woman to reject a child or to get out of contributing to a child's financial support.

Whatever the circumstances, the child needs to eat, needs shelter, clothing, love, nurturing, guidance, support, etc.

If two people conceived the child, then two people need to take responsibility.

It's a sorry, pitiful individual who needs to be forced, coerced or otherwise into being a caring, responsible parent to his own child

whether he wanted to conceive a child or "consented" to it or not.




Post 38

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Issues between the mother and father are secondary to the health and well-being of the child conceived by the two of them
Why?  You seem to be equating (equivocating?) conception with the actuality of human beingness. Are you pro-life?  Or is your opinion simply that women can be as irresponsible as they wish, hold the stupidest ideas they can muster, because the law will protect them in their desire to enslave men?

" Makes me wanna hollar."


(Edited by Teresa Summerlee Isanhart on 3/18, 6:42am)




Post 39

Saturday, March 18, 2006 - 2:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Donna,
you wrote: "It's a sorry, pitiful individual who needs to be forced, coerced or otherwise into being a caring, responsible parent to his own child

whether he wanted to conceive a child or "consented" to it or not."



You are right on target with this, D. The act itself should be accompanied by the knowledge and possibility that even if *all* precautions have been taken, a child may be born. The ones who don't take responsibility are beneath contempt.

John



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Forward one pageLast Page
[an error occurred while processing this directive] [an error occurred while processing this directive]