RoR: Forum

Now, if we all could get along. :)

Dean tossed off a controversial issue, apparently for his subjective motives–he sees no value in infants, so anything goes.

Jon called him clearly on his subjective stance–I think Marrota did as well, but I couldn’t quite understand his post.

Several people, Teresa, Luke, Erica, and Hong concentrated on the reality of the situation–bringing in Safe Haven, cultural contexts, positive options, and the concern about a cold-blooded rationalistic presentation of ethical stances -- I thought placing it in a good context.

And Joe added a perspective of negative rights, though he didn’t give credit to the context supplied earlier on in the thread by others.

It seems that this has been hashed out pretty well. The one piece that doesn’t fit in anywhere is Dean’s subjectivity–he hasn’t shown logic, principal, awareness of reality (how life works, empiricism if you will). In a way, it is like the lump of gold in Wagner’s Ring Cycle, at the end it is still just a lump of gold.

I guess, "wake up and smell the coffee, man" is not the philosophical statement that Joe is looking for in regards to Dean.

(Edited by Guy Stanton on 4/11, 7:53am)

Post 81

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 8:20am

Joe,

You say Dean wasn’t offered any rational argument, and offer the analogy of taking someone to the mountains and leaving them there to die. That’s a good argument. We’ll see if Dean gets it. However, his getting it hinges on his seeing any value in an infant. In post 3 he wrote, “Sorry, but at this stage of human development I don't value such a human child any more than another's unwanted cat or dog.” So, for him, taking an infant to the mountains or leaving one in a dumpster to die is akin to doing the same thing to a cat. Do you see that your argument cannot even get off the ground for Dean?

With due respect, I disagree with you about the common sense required here. The value of an infant most certainly will be obvious and common-sensical to someone who has integrated, truly internalized Objectivism, the philosophy that holds man as a heroic being. To such a person, the sacred status of human life becomes an automatic function in their thinking. You wouldn’t see such a person comparing a young man to a cat.

You say you think his position is tentative and mistaken. It is not tentative. He has been stuck in this ‘a person has rights to the extent they add to Dean’s life’ mode for years. You seem to think you can make progress with him. You wrote, “If at the end of the day I see that he refuses to think and is being irrational (and not just mistaken), I'm sure I'll make that clear.” I shall be eagerly watching for your progress and wondering when “the end of the day” will arrive for you.

Post 82

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 9:04am

To Joe, the world is populated almost exclusively with altruists, those who reject altruism being a rarity. His infinite patience with Dean follows from the assumption that every person who rejects altruism is a budding Objectivist. Dean’s altruism-rejecting credentials are quite strong.

In my experience, the world is populated mostly with people looking out for Number One, respect the same prerogative in others, all the while mouthing altruistic sounds.

I’ve seen a lot of people, ‘I only care about Number One’-type thugs, who discover Objectivism and are delighted in finding a sophisticated justification for their un-enlightened self-interest mindset. You can tell them all day long that Objectivism is about rational, enlightened self-interest and they never get it, or they make clear they don’t care “I'm not particularly interested in what Objectivism is or is not.” These people are a dime-a-dozen, they are not Objectivists and they actually do Objectivism harm.

Post 83

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 9:32am

Joe,
You are right that I haven't offer more detailed arguments, and I obviously was mistaken to think that many things are obvious!

And if your "common sense" is to be consistent with the happiness of the parent, then how do you justify an unwanted obligation? I'm sure you think your view of morality and common sense are consistent with human happiness, but which human's? You've shown that it is in the self-interest of the child for the mother to care for it. You haven't even hinted at self-interested motivation, for instance.

Indeed I have thought that this is obvious! But yes, if you look at things from a very narrow point of view, that of an American living since the last 50 years or so, you may indeed not to be able to see it. It may also depend on a person's own experience with family. However, for thousands of years of human history, and it is still hold true for many cultures in today's world, individual's welfare cannot be separated from that of his family. Parents care for their young, and adults care for the elder. If anything happens to a child's own parents, the child is naturally cared for by other family members, such as uncles and aunts. To raise many healthy and productive children is the most important way for a family to achieve prosperity. And it is the only way for elderly people to be cared for and to live decently.

It is only after Industrial Revolution that individuals may be able to prosper on their own. And this has a profound impact on the family structure of modern industrial society. Also, in the modern age of extraordinary convenience, elders become less and less dependent on their adult children. Social welfare also contributes a great deal to this independence. Parentless children now often become a burden of the society, of you and me, instead of their own family. When you refuse the obligation of the parents for their own children (here I meant either raising children themselves or giving it up for adoption), you implicitly assume another party for the responsibility. What is it then? Charity? Welfare? I have to admit that not coming from a Christian or welfare culture, charity and welfare usually are not in my thinking of things.

PS. I just realize that all I wrote here are pretty much beside the point at hand. Oh, well. It seems that it's 100% acceptable to everyone here if the mother doesn't want to care for her baby. But it is not acceptable that she kills it.

(Edited by Hong Zhang on 4/11, 11:17am)

Post 84

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 9:56am

Joe's argument (first stated in post #62),

"...other people are willing to take care of the baby. If anyone else is willing to do it, then preventing them (by, for instance, throwing the baby in a dumpster) is actually murdering the baby"

is too much like a good-hearted rationalization. It doesn't work.

The reason it doesn't work is that there is no specific person whose actual attempt to take care of the baby was frustrated. Therefore the "act of murder" wasn't completed. In this scenario you'd have to show an actual person was coming to help and that the actions of the mother frustrated that attempt to help.

This example shows it better: If a doctor was trying to answer a emergency call of a patient with cardiac arrest in a hospital room and a third person physically fought off the doctor and nurses so they couldn't effect the rescue - that would be a case of murder by preventing help. But if the heart attack happened at the victim's home and the only other person there did nothing but watch - made no call for help - that would not be murder.

And if two people went camping in the woods in the winter, and one of them abandoned the other to the cold weather, taking all of the means of escape and all of the means of keeping warm with them, that would be murder.
-----------------
Now, for the actual story:

A woman was charged with murder for placing her newborn baby girl in a trash bag on the back porch of her home and leaving her to die in the cold. I checked on-line and found that the temperature in Brooklyn that evening reached a low of 37 °F. This means that placing the infant outside, in that cold, was an act that forcefully interferred with the infants normal acts of living - just as surely as stabbing her through the heart with a knife would interfer with the normal acts of living.

My position here has been that the baby has the same negative rights that we all have and they were violated.

I have sanctioned Michael Stuart Kelly for saying so clearly in post #79 what I stumbled all around in one pitiful paragraph but never did make clear.

Human beings have a biological nature: birth, growth, maturity, aging and death. All this is part of the genus, as in "rational animal," where "rational" is the differentia and "animal" is the genus.

But I would change the direction of Michael's argument and say, the differentia is a faculty and it is possessed by the baby. If any human being has a right to it's life - and if that right is a true right, not just an arbitrary, social convention or gift, then all human beings have that right and it would begin as soon as we declare them a separate human being: at birth.

The issue of parental obligations is something else - it isn't required to judge that story. It is an issue that I haven't addressed.

Post 85

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 10:13am

I think we all agree that it was immoral to abandon the baby, so I don't think there's much else to discuss other than the why, which it seems the topic has been fruitful in this area. In the end, we're not talking about a mere object, but a person, when we're talking about the baby in question or any other human baby for that matter. The fact that the baby was abandoned makes me wonder if some folks don't accept responsibility for what they've done. In this case, making the baby in the first place. The women did indeed get pregnant, she could have had an abortion, so she had a debt to the baby to some extent, not as a duty to the baby maybe, but definitely as a debt for having to be responsible to care for it in some manner, even if it meant dropping it off at SRS/Child-welfare services. She didn't have to keep the baby, she could have let others care for it, and I think that's the rub here. Why did she abandon the baby? What was rattling in that melon we call a head? Clearly she didn't think it through, but I don't believe the woman in question had intended for the baby to die, otherwise why didn't she do the deed that would have ensured it? This means she was irresponsible with the baby, but not to the point of any degrees of murder or manslaughter, which was my original point. You can't say that because the baby potentially would have died by being abandoned, because we're not talking about potentials when we're talking about crimes. It's only in actuals when we consider crimes.

Did she actually kill the baby? No.

Did she leave it in such a way that could have meant its death or damage to its person? Yes.

Does this equivocate to murder? No.

Why? Because the actual crimes were abandonment and abuse, which did occur and those are the only crimes we can charge her with, and nothing more.

And that is just that.

-- Brede

Post 86

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 11:32am

Bridget,

"We" don't charge her with anything - that is up to the state. They have charged her with murder. And that is just that :-)

Now, "should" the state have charged her with murder? Yes. Had she put the baby in a tub of acid, would that be murder? Yes, because the baby can not live in acid. Well, babies can't live overnight in 37 degree weather either and the mother moved her to the outdoors and into that temperature.

Abandonment would be leaving the baby at a Mall, on the inside where it was warm.

You said,

...I don't believe the woman in question had intended for the baby to die

I see nothing in the story to support that belief. There is no reason to have to get out a knife or gun or even to strangle the baby. Just put it out in the cold. It is reasonable to expect a baby to die if left outside at that temperature and I suspect that is why the state charged her with murder and not negligent homicide.

But it also should be said that a specific intent is NOT required if you can show malice or a willful disregard for life. And, if they hadn't felt they could sustain the charge of murder, they would have gone for manslaughter which doesn't require showing any particular state of mind. They would not go for abandoment, which at best would just be a lesser included charge.

You said,

You can't say that because the baby potentially would have died by being abandoned...

I'm not saying "potentially" - it would be absolutely impossible for a person to spend all night out in that weather without proper protection and not die - simple laws of physics govern hypothermia.
----------------------

The real issue of concern for me has always been individual rights and your statement that they are a gift in the case of babies. Newton published the principles of motion and his act of sharing them was a 'gift' in a sense to all of us. He didn't have to do that. But the principles themselves are not a gift - they are an identification of an aspect of reality - not an arbitrary, social convention. A gift is volitional, it can be given or not and in somecases can be taken back. It can take almost any form where a principle can not - it must be true or false. A gift and a right are diametrically opposed in one thoe most important senses. When you refer to something as a gift, one thing you can be sure of, that is that the person doesn't have it by right.

Post 87

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 11:46am

Steve W and Michael,
     Do human beings have a biological nature prior to birth? What are the moral implications?

Bridget,
      For me, you appear to get to the heart of the matter by making a distinction between the moral and legal aspects. This is important in order for people to get closer to some sort of a rational consensus. The legal ramifications surrounding abortion are ever shifting, and the lines drawn in order to denote what is criminal are often arbitrary. (Dean pushes the line further with the use of the notion "post birth abortion" as a subject title).

     You properly point out a moral continuum which starts long before a fetus is aborted, or a baby neglected, or an infant murdered. To me this reflects the immorality of irrational actions, the severity of which increase the further along the continuum one proceeds. Individual circumstances play a role in the degree of immorality involved and occassionally the natural and legal consequences are in balance.  Oftentimes they are not.

     Perhaps even Dean would agree that the immorality of the woman in question could have begun  as early as when she first batted her eyelashes at the guy at the other end of the bar with whom she ended up conceiving the child. It all depends, but at some point along the chain of choices and consequences, an immorality was conceived and grew in magnitude.

    There is no single, big, black rational moral line that I can perceive in this whole abortion/infanticide debate, because individual circumstances blur it. Regardless of wether or not the woman in question suffers legal consequences for her actions (deserved or not), imprisonment in her skin would, for any of us, be a fate worse than death.

Post 88

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:28pm

Ed, MSK, and Steve, perhaps another thread would be useful for sorting out the arguments about rights for newborns. I'm not disagreeing with the final conclusion, but the means aren't very convincing. And since you three in particular have stated these conclusions as if there's absolutely no doubts in your mind, I'm wondering what this extremely obvious justification is. One problem, for instance, is in MSK's view of "biological nature". Certainly the requirements of the baby's life are explained there. But isn't the concept of rights also contingent on the fact that there is a harmony of interests possible? If the world were truly zero sum, where one man's gain is another man's actual loss (your survival means the death of someone else), what happens to rights? Why don't animals have rights, since they have requirements for living as well?

This topic is probably worthy of an entirely different conversation.

Post 89

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 12:37pm

Jon, there's a few ways to think about rights. One is that the concept is somehow independent of our value and "life as the standard". In this thinking, rights are a kind of side-constraint on action. The other way is to show why rights are thoroughly in our own interests, both in having our own rights respected as well as others.

You have a problem with Dean orienting everything towards Dean's life. But I don't have that problem at all. If he's serious about it, then it's just a matter of showing him why respecting of rights is in his own interests. In fact, I'd have a bigger problem with someone who tried to justify rights outside of the context of his own interests or life. As soon as people imagine that rights are a constraint on their life, and they'd benefit from bypassing them, I'd have little confidence in having my own rights respected.

We should also keep in mind that the case for rights is formulated in the context of adults interacting in a harmony of interests. The issue of a newborn, (or fetus for that matter), is far from the most straightforward embodiment of the principles of rights. While it may be the most emotionally stirring for many people, that doesn't mean the rational case for it is stronger. I prefer not to condemn someone for misunderstanding a borderline case.

Post 90

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 1:32pm

Joe,

"One problem, for instance, is in MSK's view of "biological nature". Certainly the requirements of the baby's life are explained there."

I wonder sometimes about how expressions are vague. Is it possible that my observation that human beings have a biological nature is my personal view (my opinion) and only my view? Is this observation true for some people and not true for others? Does anyone contest that human beings have a biological nature? Is this even debatable? I would be very interested in hearing an argument to the contrary.

Also, the requirements under discussion are not only those of the baby's life. All adults were once babies, so in essence, the requirements of the adult's life are contingent on the requirements of the baby's life. If the baby does not survive, there will be no adult. There is no such thing as a baby human being as one species and adult human being as another species. They are both the same species. For individual rights to be universal, one phase cannot be excluded. Any claim that it can be excluded is irrational, i.e., based on some standard other than reason. Such concept of rights is arbitrary by the very definition of man.

"But isn't the concept of rights also contingent on the fact that there is a harmony of interests possible?"

Harmony of interests for whom? Individual rational animals, or individual rational blobs without any other nature than "rational"? Objectivism is a philosophy for human beings, i.e., rational animals.

"If the world were truly zero sum, where one man's gain is another man's actual loss (your survival means the death of someone else), what happens to rights?"

Where did production enter this argument? Zero sum is a concept applicable to production, not biology. Survival and care of the young are biological issues.

How's this biological sum for sex, going to the other side of the equation?

1 Male human being + 1 Female human being = 3 human beings.

That sure ain't zero sum...

Why don't animals have rights, since they have requirements for living as well?

Obviously because they are not rational (the differentia in "rational animal"), do not have conceptual volition and thus cannot have a philosophy. I don't really understand this question. Are you presuming that rights can be conceived somehow outside of philosophy?

Steve P,

"Do human beings have a biological nature prior to birth? What are the moral implications?"

Of course human beings have a biological nature prior to birth. How is that debatable? What on earth is a human being without a biological nature?

On the moral implications, the real question is when does a fetus become more than a potential individual human being and actually become one. The obvious point is upon birth, outside the womb. Modern science is showing this to be a more or less a couple of months before birth, since the baby can be removed and still achieve birth at the time of removal.

As regards rights, they should exist starting with birth if we are to have a rational society based on freedom and individual rights. Borderline cases (very late-term abortions like at 8 months, for instance) should be treated on a case-by-case basis with focus on context and even science.

Michael

Post 91

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 2:15pm

Jon,

You bring up the un-enlightened self-interest mindset. I agree that can be a serious problem, and there are probably Objectivists who fit that description.

I also think there are sincere Objectivists who try hard to practice the philosophy. Some of those people follow the reasoning to the wrong place. Since they're attempting to rethink their entire worldview, they ignore "common sense" that tells them they should think some way without a good reason. So for instance some Objectivists may think that avoiding being a second-hander means not showering, dressing poorly, never saying thanks (why should I care if they think I'm rude! I'm an Objectivists...I shouldn't care what they think!).

The question is whether these people are rationalizing their own un-enlightened selfishness or character flaws (meaning they existed before they were exposed to Objectivism), or whether they develop these flaws by misunderstanding and misapplying Objectivist principles.

You seem to have made up your mind about Dean. From my interactions with him, he's driven by trying to apply these ideas consistently no matter where it takes him. If I'm right, persuasion and new ideas will alter his views.

Post 92

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 2:33pm

Joe asks,

But isn't the concept of rights also contingent on the fact that there is a harmony of interests possible?

Harmony of interest would still exist with a baby as it does with an adult. First, it always so in the sense that there can never be such a thing as a right to violate a right. That would be true for a baby's rights or an adults rights (they are not really no different - there are only individual rights). It is certainly true that this is a logical requirement of anything called a right.

Harmony of interests finds its most frequent occurrence in economic activities between two or more adults. Because a baby has very limited sphere of actions possible there are very few possible interactions where harmony or lack thereof would present. But the absence of many cases where harmony of interests would be visible doesn't mean the right isn't a right.

Joe asks,

Why don't animals have rights, since they have requirements for living as well?

Animals don't have rights because the don't possess a rational faculty - and therefore, their lives don't require that they exercise volition. In the absence of choice, there is no morality. It is the volitional aspect of our nature that is most important in this context. An infant's rational faculty is still developing but it is doing so by making choices as it learns to control movements, establish identity, learning to focus, etc. Other animals also are learning (young and old) but not with a faculty of awareness that posesses volition.

Joe says,

The issue of a newborn, (or fetus for that matter), is far from the most straightforward embodiment of the principles of rights.

That is certainly true. And it is complicated by the need for parents to be intermediate delegates for self-defense of the child, and then there is the still unaddressed issues of parental responsibilities, and those are just a few of the complexities.

And...

While it may be the most emotionally stirring for many people, that doesn't mean the rational case for it is stronger.

Agreed - the emotional intensity has no significance in determining truth. If it turned out (which it won't ;-) that children had no rights and were property of parents who could kill them if they wanted, then that would our starting point in this discussion - what laws do we change in what ways to impliment the right to kill kids. But that's not the case.

And...

I prefer not to condemn someone for misunderstanding a borderline case.

I'm not going to argue in favor of condeming anyone. We each have our obligation to ourself to be clear in our objections. I feel no need to go beyond that. But I disagree that this is a borderline issue.

Allow me to point out some silly facts: There have been more infants than adults through the course of history. Every future adult will first have to be an infant before becoming an adult. Every person that ever lived in the past and all who are alive today were an infant. Like Michael pointed out it is an inescapable part of who and what we are. And there is hardly a day that goes by that the issue of child's rights doesn't enter the news. Rights are crucial to how a child is treated and how a child is treated has considerable effect on the adult they become. And, most important, if there is anywhere that Objectivists should not be fuzzy in their understanding, it should be in the area of rights.

Post 93

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 2:57pm

Steve,

Rationalization? That's not very benevolent. I didn't accuse you of having a good-hearted instrinsic view of rights.

I of course disagree with your assessment. You point out that there was no particular person that was being prevented from helping. But that's what the Safe Haven law is all about. It's saying that there are plenty of people, organized via the local government, who are ready to take care of the child.

Let's try another example. If a woman says she's going to take care of a child, and then takes the baby away from where anyone will notice that it's going to die, and changes her mind about feeding it, it would still be murder. The fact that there are no particular people that were looking to help the baby doesn't change the matter at all. They didn't know the baby needed help. She managed to obscure it from their knowledge. How does the fact that she successfully kept it a secret make it less of a murder?

Or how about a mother who takes her baby to the woods and lets it die while the father is under the false impression that the mother is going to be taking care of the baby? Less of a crime because nobody was actively looking to save the baby (since they didn't know it was necessary)?

The law is an acknowledgment that there are people quite willing to take care of the baby, and further that they're informing all of the citizens that this is the case. If the mother decides to throw the baby in the dumpster, she's preventing all of the people who support that law, plus the local government, from helping the baby. There are lots of specific people being frustrated.

So you say "In this scenario you'd have to show an actual person was coming to help and that the actions of the mother frustrated that attempt to help."

Easy. The local government, including police office Bob, were ready to rush in and help any abandoned baby. Police officer Bob was frustrated by the deception of the mother, who hid the baby in the dumpster, who maybe hid the pregnancy from neighbors, who hid her intentions to let the baby die.

I think my explanation holds up pretty well. Of course, to call it murder, we'd still have to show that newborns have rights. But given that assumption, I think this shows why it is a violation of those actual rights, and not a violation of some mystical "positive rights".

Post 94

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 3:23pm

Steve,

Regarding your post 92, I came so, so close to sanctioning it. I still might. But the last paragraph made me turn away.

First, I thought from eaarlier in your post that you accepted that it was a borderline case. Specifically, since the harmony of interests is part of the justification for rights, and the baby doesn't have the same sphere of action making that harmony possible (doesn't mean there's a conflict of interests, but certainly a significantly reduced harmony). Since one of the logical conditions for rights is at best a potential, that seems to be a borderline. It's not the only kind of borderline, but it certainly is one.

Second, the "all adults were once infants" argument would apply equally well to a fetus. In fact, MSK's whole "argument", if we can call it that, is equally applicable to a fetus. If we were to take that line very seriously, we'd have to oppose abortion in all cases (assuming we were convinced that position had any real significance).

MSK, once again you've convinced me that your thinking is so muddled that no discussion is even possible. Nobody is disputing that babies have a biological nature. Where do you even get this stuff? But nobody else suggests that this magically transforms to the concept of rights without a single reason. Your entire rant is amazingly confused. Wow! A man and a woman can have a baby! Amazing! Well, that explains individual rights thoroughly! Nothing more needs to be said on that topic! And your comments on zero sum? Ugh! I'll stop pretending that you are capable of understanding anything now.

Let me rephrase my original suggestion. Ed and Steve, if you want to take that topic to another thread, it would be worth it.

Post 95

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 4:09pm

Joe,

"In fact, MSK's whole "argument", if we can call it that, is equally applicable to a fetus."

Actually it does not apply at all. I will try to be very slow because you seem to have some resistance to understanding this and defining terms.

Rights apply only to human beings. A human being is a rational animal. An infant is included in this definition because he is both rational and an animal.

An infant has his rational (conceptual) faculty functioning in addition to his automatic animal processes. A fetus only has his automatic animal functions running. Rationally he is only a potential. That means, by definition, a fetus is not yet a full individual human being. The genus is there, but the differentia has not yet developed.

A newborn starts to form his first concepts from the very first moment he becomes aware with his very first cry. As a fetus, I suppose some differentiation and integration goes on at a percept level, but not conceptual identification.

This is actually what I believe Ayn Rand meant by the phrase tabula rasa at birth. At least, any other meaning is not substantiated by science.

Anyway, there you have it. I see no clearer way to put it. In Objectivism, in the definition of human being, rational is the differentia and animal is the genus. I swear I am not making this up. If you would like a Rand quote, say from ITOE or even elsewhere, I can furnish that. In the ITOE workshops, Rand even cautioned a student against leaving out the genus when calling man "rational."

When you deal with rights, it is very important not to leave out human beings or mischaracterize them. And for that, it is very, very important to understand just what a human being is.

Apparently, judging from your reaction, we seem to disagree on this. Frankly, I don't see how my explanation is muddled at all. It is about as rational and Objectivist as one can get.

Michael

Post 96

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 4:50pm

Joe,

I apologize for the rationalization remark. It was not intended as an insult. I obviously mis-read your post because until just now I thought you were saying it was NOT murder. In fact we are both in agreement. We both agree that it is murder and for the same reason. I wrongly thought that you were using the safe haven laws as a reason to call it abandonment. My argument was to take the murder action away from some possible third party and place it with the act the mother did commit (not the hiding, but the placing in the cold). In other words, if the fact that there are other willing people had been used as a defense, then I needed to show that they don't count while they are only a potential. I obviously need to read more carefully.

You said,

...the "all adults were once infants" argument would apply equally well to a fetus.

Most of that paragraph was intended only to show that I see the issue of child's rights as important - we may be using the term borderline in different ways. My reaction to the use of the term borderline, was, "No way, kids rights are important and come up all the time.) The arguments were intended to show that we need to look at this issue and most of the paragraph was "anti-borderline" rather than an for a kind of rights. (Except for the one sentence where I pointed out an agreement with Michael where he said that being an infant is an inescapable part of who we are - in our nature - and in that sense your point of birth rather than fetus does need to be addressed).

I'll open a new thread.

Post 97

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 4:58pm

Thanks Steve, I now see what the misunderstanding was.

As for borderline, I meant it in the conceptual sense. Like how the colors blue and green are different, but as you start getting colors close to both you're dealing with a borderline case of the concepts. In those cases, you shouldn't get frustrated when someone tells you that that color is blue, when you think it's more green. Since the nature of rights is identified and clearest in the cases of adults, when you start moving away from that clear case, you move towards the borders of the concept. Obviously children are an example. Same with mentally retarded people. Same with lifeboat or emergency situations. In all of these cases, the justification for rights is more of a stretch.

I take it you interpreted "borderline" to mean cases that are of little importance. I can see how your comments make sense in that context.

Post 98

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 5:12pm

Jon,

You're always an entertaining read for me. Also, you're more persuasive than you probably think you are. I want to gently offer a word of caution about the use of this awesome ability you have. There are real people involved here.

I know you think Dean's ideas are more than just mistaken, but honestly, if you think about it, Dean didn't offer much of a defense, did he? Its not like he fought tooth and nail to convince anyone here that his conclusion is correct. Seriously, his conclusion contained more questions than it did actual argument, don't you think?

That alone tells me something important. It tells me Dean himself isn't convinced his conclusion is correct. It tells me he may even be uncomfortable with his conclusion.

Don't think the worst just yet. I don't think it's warranted.

Post 99

Wednesday, April 11, 2007 - 5:27pm