RoR: Forum

Two people have voted on an Objectivist site that they oppose contraception in any form.

I would really like to see them attempt to justify their position on any grounds. It would be as superb a demonstration of sophistry as I could ever imagine.

If they cannot do it here as they have already found themselves banished to Dissent, as I suspect, then they can post their rationalizations there.

EDIT: Visit http://rebirthofreason.com/Forum/Dissent/0130.shtml to read the arguments.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/05, 12:54pm)

Post 21

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 2:27pm

By the way, concerning the Roman practice of exposure, anyone was welcomed to pick up an exposed baby and keep it for themselves, including as a slave. People often knew where the favorite exposure places were, thus ensuring that some of the kids might be saved either to be raised by those desiring children or those desiring cheap labor.

Post 22

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 7:59pm

Luke, what does it mean to be"banished to dissent"?

Post 23

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 9:57pm

I must say that I was slightly surprised to see that the restrictive alternatives especially including ALL CONTRACEPTION! had gotten any votes. I assume that those so voting may indeed be dissenters, but I don't think the mere willingness to tell the truth in an anonymous poll would warrant banishment, and I don't expect anyone else here does either. Disruption and persistent mischaracterizations would certainly merit banishment. But if this is not a forum for some range of discussion within a generally agreed upon framework, and toeing the party line is all that is acceptable, there are other fora more suitable for that. I have restricted my posting for the last few months to this forum. I know that in certain respects I am on the outskirts of certain arguments. But I admit and confess and relish this, and justify myself within the Randian methodoloy, not in contradiction to it. Objectivism is a method, not a conclusion. Indeed, I often see little pont in posting views of mine which are orthodox, since they are already orthodox. It is where disagreement and uncertainty exist that argument is profitable. There is nothing I despise more than those who simply sanction orthodoxy and otherwise remain silent, and play it safe.

Ted Keer

Post 24

Monday, March 5, 2007 - 11:46pm

Ted,

I'm sure that I echo the sentiments of many here that you add a great deal and many of us look forward to your posts . (I know that once or twice you felt like I was snippy in a reply - I think it was just my writing style - or lack thereof).

If there were only the orthodox here - singing the party-line to the choir - I don't think I'd hang around for long.

Post 25

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 1:31am

Bob Enright asked:

Luke, what does it mean to be"banished to dissent"?

Banishment to Dissent results from attempting consistently to post ideas at odds with Objectivist core principles, e.g. consistently advocating supernaturalism rather than reality, faith rather than reason, altruism rather than egoism, tyranny rather than rights, etc. Joe makes the final call on this and does not do so flippantly. Pseudonymous poster Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz is one such poster who got himself banished to Dissent months ago for such good cause. He confirmed my suspicions that he did in fact vote in opposition to all contraception.

This forum is by and for Objectivists and so it is proper that those who oppose Objectivism have their posting privileges restricted, not just to preserve the enjoyment of the Objectivists, but also to avoid confusion of those new to Objectivism.

(Edited by Luke Setzer on 3/06, 1:35am)

Post 26

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:09am

So, let me see if I've got this. My voting to ban all abortion, except for the life of the mother, and, consistently pointing out that the real act of evasion going on here is the myriad mental gymnastics employed to evade the fact that abortion takes a human life...would risk banishment?

I fear this policy could put us on the same slippery slope that the PC police on the left have slid down.

Post 27

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:25am

For one thing, it isn't 'mental gymnastics' but recognition of reality, and a knowing of biological processes - that is, the recognition and acceptance of the difference between potential and actual..... so, despite your claims, no evasion is being done....

Post 28

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 5:40am

Bob, rest assured that a person would have to deny fundamentals of Objectivism to get banished. I do not see you doing this. We disagree, and I think your chain of reasoning makes mistakes, but I think you are genuinely trying to make an honest argument starting with Objectivist fundamentals. By contrast, Leibniz starts with Catholic fundamentals and so rejects at the outset the Objectivist fundamentals.

Post 29

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 6:29am

Robert, when a man and a woman conjugate, and the sperm joins the egg, in every case it is a human being that is formed. You can argue about when it is fully human, but, left to natural development (ie no outside interference) 9 months later it is a baby. To abort it, you know and I know, you are destroying human life. Not "potential" human life, human life itself. The only way it could be "potential" human life, would be if there was a chance that something different would result.

Luke, I understand your point, though if it was my decision (and, obviously, it isn't), I'd feel safer to let Leibniz make an ass of himself, rather than risk squashing legitimate speech. That said, this is still the best spot on the net, and I appreciate the opportunity to participate.

Post 30

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 7:01am

when a man and a woman conjugate, and the sperm joins the egg, in every case it is a human being that is formed. You can argue about when it is fully human, but, left to natural development (ie no outside interference) 9 months later it is a baby.

A blueprint is not a house.... even a biological blueprint is not the product - thus, in every case, it is NOT a human being that is formed, only the potential of developing into one....... in the same way, an egg of a robin is NOT the new robin UNTIL it has hatched....... life, for the animal, human included, begins at birth......

Post 31

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 7:02am

Every egg produced by a woman's ovary is a living cell, you know and I know, is human life. Every sperm is a living human cell. The hand the unfortunate young hiker hacked off to save his life a couple of years ago was undeniably millions of human cells. Transplanted organs involve the removal. death and discarding of human cells. So what? What is perverse, to me, is the invasion into other peoples lives. If I were a woman I would say: "My body, my decision. Mind your own business". I have to ask the question, where does this prurient interest in what goes on inside of a strangers body come from? It is bigotry, not reason.

Post 32

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 7:11am

It amazes me the lengths to which many go to evade the difference between potential and actual, even to claiming that acknowledging the potential is 'to ride a slippery slope'.... a 'living cell' is just that - it is NOT a human being, only the potential to becoming one - this is such elementary an exercise of reason it is incredilous to see opposition to it from those saying they are objectivists.....

you may believe it is human life, but that is all it is, a belief - it is NOT knowledge......

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/06, 7:14am)

(Edited by robert malcom on 3/06, 7:15am)

Post 33

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 9:36am

I opposed it after earlierst viability. I am not big on it at any point, because it shows a fundamental lack of control on the parent's part - excepting accidents, and even then, my new nephew Alex was just such an accident, but my sister (despite I think her belief in abortion rights) did not seriously consider that he should not be born.

Post 34

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 6:00pm

An Artist's Rendition of a Wet Mars
from ABC Online (Australian Broadcasting Company)
(replaces deleted duplicate post)

Ted Keer

(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/06, 6:37pm)

Post 35

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 6:05pm

Infanticide at the Altar of Indecison

When I first discovered Rand, my biggest stumbling blocks with her were atheism, abortion, and homosexuality.

I found my theism the easiest to give up, after reading her "indestructible robot" argument I found that a personal god was superfluous so far as ethics are concerned, indeed, absurd.

I simply assumed that her views on homosexuality were wrong, as I know myself, (I am bi) and she did not know me. This is a non-issue except for some of the old-guard and a few at ARI. Since, in any case, Objectivists do respect the rights of homosexuals, I don't frankly care about their personal opinions, or whether they prefer Beethoven to Mozart. (I'm a Ludwigian, myself.)

But abortion required some intellectual and emotional adjustment. As with Kurt's last post and with Enright's, I wonder why the question of a woman's responsibility for her actions (inaction is consent) is so consistently ignored on this one issue.

For example, let's say that I arrange to rent a house to own, and that I live on the property while it is constructed. I negotiate to buy the property, but before closing, I change my mind, leave the house open to the elements, watch it be destroyed by water damage, and tell the builders that it was just a potential home. It wasn't a real home yet, destroying it wasn't like arson.

Now, of course, this is an absurd extreme and an imperfect analogy. But why is it that we expect people to hold up to their contracts and to close on 30-year mortgages in 30 days, while some of us have no problem killing a baby one hour before delivery, but not one hour after? Again, are 120 days not enough to decide, do we really need to embrace infanticide at the altar of indecison?

On the other hand, before neural activity in the fetus, which is most certainly absent before quickening (around 4 mo.) there is no consciousness, no mind, no sentience, no feeling of any sort. I would certainly call the fetus alive, and even human, but I wouldn't call it a PERSON before that point. Indeed, it is at the ontological level of a sponge - a vegetable. So the question becomes, (for me) how do you balance a woman's autonomy, limited by her own actions, with the rights of a developing person.

I disagree with Robert Malcom about the essentiality of sapience, and whether a fetus is human life, or if its being human life matters. Humanity, (beloning to the species Homo sapiens depends solely upon genetics. We speak of human blood versus pig's blood, and live flesh as opposed to dead skin. A fetus is both human and alive. At some point it is also sentient. At that point, I stipulate that it is a person. I deny that sapience is necessary in order for an individual to be granted the status of personhood. Sapience is self-reflective thought, something most children don't achieve untill well after toilet-training, and few leftists ever achieve.

I would ask Mr. Enright who exactly (other than the conscientious adults involved) is suffering if one aborts a 3 month vegetative fetus (embryo) with no neural activity? If no person suffers, what is the crime? If there is no crime, what does the state have to say in the matter?

Rand made me an atheist in a week, but comfort with at least early abortion took me some time to adjust to. If God exists, he won't mind the slight. I'm more worried about protecting innocent persons.

Ted Keer
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 3/06, 6:17pm)

Post 36

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 6:57pm

Ted, no mental gymnastics, there. A well presented argument. Though, I would respond that the infant is harmed, even if it doesn't feel anything, as it has lost 80 or so years of precious life. In my mind, I have to balance this against the potential hardships and change of life for the mother and (hopefully) the father, if he hasn't run off.

The question of the mother having 120 days to decide is a little disturbing to me, as, at least in the industrialized world, there was no need to bring it to this point in the first place. With the wide availability of contraception it is inexcusable to end up pregnant when you never intended to have a child. Sure, there are those rare occurrences when contraception fails, but that does not come close to accounting for the 40 million abortions in the US since Roe v. Wade. In the overwhelming majority of cases the whole issue could have been avoided with a little common sense. In those few cases where all precaution was taken and failed, it is the responsibility of the 2 adults involved to take responsibility for their actions. Accident or not, the fetus still has the right to enjoy those 80 years.

As to adapting to atheism, it took me longer than a week, and I believe the Catholic church had more to do with convincing me, than Rand.

Post 37

Tuesday, March 6, 2007 - 9:47pm

Funny, my brother-in-law says that the best way to create an atheist is to send your child to Catholic School. I went to public school, and turned out alright, even if I do harbour a secret admiration for the Jesuits.

As for abortion, yes, I also agree that waiting even 120 days smacks of a lackadaisical irrespect for the human condition. But an embryo which has not yet moved of its own power (before quickening) is a vegetable being while an infant is animate going on rational. (While both are human, one is a person, the other not yet.) I would wish that all people procreate with forethought. Having intercourse before the big discussion and proper precaution is like flying drunk. And now I vow silence on this issue unless directly challenged.

Ted Keer

Post 38

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 3:49am

Ted,

Roger Bissell, an old acquaintance and RoR member, has echoed many of your ideas here.

There was a raging, volcanic argument over his article years ago on an old O'st discussion list, and many others since.

Personally, I can't stomach the idea of abortion after viability. I've never been able to reconcile the geography of mere inches to say "oh, sure! It's perfectly okay!"

Hi, Bob (the alien "Enright" ;) -

If you think about it, conception is an automatic function of a women's body, not unlike breathing or digestion or any reflex action. If I say "yes" to a plate of sushi, I'm not, by proxy, agreeing to a case of food poisoning, if conditions of the fish is outside of my control. Am I? Should I be forced to deal with everything involved with tainted fish because I chose to consume it?

Should I just give up my love of sushi (used as an example only! yuck!) to avoid the potential problems of food poisoning? Or should I expect the fish to be perfect for consumption any time I'm in the mood for it?

Post 39

Wednesday, March 7, 2007 - 7:41am