New Supreme Court Nominee

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
First of all, I did not say that I am right because ayn rand said so, I did use her arguments but the reason I did not cite her was because I wanted the argument to stand on its own. You did not address the argument I put forth only an argument against rand, which is fallacious by the way because it does not accurately prtray her argument. It misunderstands all the meanings of all her premises, obviously the author of the argument has not read a lot of her writings and assumed way too much about what she meant by certain things. Yes computers are things, clouds are things, but not in the sense of what she was talking about. A cloud does not care if it continues to exist, neither does a computer or a plant. There can be no values to IT only the the entity which values it. Your computer is a value to you only because of its relation to you, its continued existence to you only matters to you. It is a value to you, not to itself, there is no good or bad to it, only to you, the owner of the computer. Just because this country has a lot of differing idfeas about existence doesn';t mean that one does not have the moral authority above all others. It mean there are many wrong ideas, and one or more right ideas if those that are right are consistent with each other. If one person believes that the earth is flat, and another believes it is round, and another believes it is cubical, then only one of them can be right, they can't all be right. They can all be wrong, but that has to be shown. I suggest you read more about objectivism before you dismiss it, and learn what it really means instead of just regurgitating straw man arguments from people who don't understand what they are talkign about.[/b][/quote]
Oh the irony. Rand couldn't articulate her views in philosophical prose so she wrote novels in which all her philosophical enemies are straw men. The characters are literally absurd. Also, Rand is a capitalist version of Nietzsche and she equates disagreement with her views with character flaws. i.e. if you don't agree with her, you're "anti-life" :eyes (Nietzsche also used this tactic but in a more moderate way; "philosophical systems arise from someone's character, not their thought.")

Most notorious is her terrible misreading of Kant.

She takes up a shallow (although very common among students) reading of Kant that says that only totally selfless acts are moral. i.e. she attributes to Kant the position that the only moral actions are ones in which we suffer great pain or death in doing so. I.E. a torturer says "tell a lie or I will cut off your fingers" and we still refuse to tell a lie. Now, go and read Kant both in the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals and in the 2nd Critique you will see that he says something similar, but by no means the same. What Kant says is that the only way we can KNOW FOR SURE that our actions are moral is in such a situation. But he doesn't leave out the possibility that other actions are moral. He doesn't say that, when we give money to victims of the hurricane and also derive a good feeling about helping those people, our actions aren't moral. He just says that we can't know FOR SURE.

Check out this site for more of the Kant problems:

http://enlightenment.supersaturated....tivity/walsh1/

Oh, and I'm familiar with Objectivism. The article is on point. Please forgive me for heavily criticizing a philosophy that is quite popular among young people who read Rand. She should have just stuck to her crappy experiments with prose.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>WHat is happeneing to HER body is that it is being used by another against her will. Yes the fetus is a seperate individual, but it does not have the right to leech of another against their will.[/b][/quote]
It's understood that you feel this. I disagree. I (or someone) could feel that objectively looking at cell division, and carrying of unique human genetic code, as physical processes are no more or less valuable than that which human's term consciousness (and no more or less indicative of what it is to be human at the most basic level.) I believe innocent individuals have a right to life. That is where we differ.



<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>Would you let anjother person enslave you? Would you argue that it is their right, if they need to enslave you in order to survive?
[/b][/quote]
Apples and oranges.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>
Wouldn't that train of thought make the fetus simular to a parasite?
[/b][/quote]
No. I have some biology lecture notes to leaf through if that'll help you at all. Let me know if you want them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(GottaBigOne @ Nov 3 2005, 12:39 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
First of all, I did not say that I am right because ayn rand said so,
Just because this country has a lot of differing idfeas about existence doesn';t mean that one does not have the moral authority above all others. It mean there are many wrong ideas, and one or more right ideas if those that are right are consistent with each other. If one person believes that the earth is flat, and another believes it is round, and another believes it is cubical, then only one of them can be right, they can't all be right. They can all be wrong, but that has to be shown.

I suggest you read more about objectivism before you dismiss it, and learn what it really means instead of just regurgitating straw man arguments from people who don't understand what they are talkign about.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick @ Nov 2 2005, 02:02 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
No, you're making it more difficult than it need be. Your hair, finger nails, are parts of a human being. The fact that the fetus has it's OWN unique genetic code, separate from yours, separate from that of your hair, uniquely identifies it as a human unto itself, not a piece of another.
[/b][/quote]
WHat is happeneing to HER body is that it is being used by another against her will. Yes the fetus is a seperate individual, but it does not have the right to leech of another against their will. Would you let anjother person enslave you? Would you argue that it is their right, if they need to enslave you in order to survive?
[/b][/quote]
Gota Big One,

You make some excellent points.

I will point out some clarifications that I believe need to be made.’

True a fetus is a living organism. But it does not think until the 30th week of pregnancy. So is it a human as we think of it before the 30th week? The Constitution also makes it plain that citizens are people BORN in the United States or have been naturalized citizens meaning they took all the tests as adults and took the oath of allegiance to the USA.

Gotta a Big One,

I know you are not religious. However, almost the entire argument against abortion comes from the Catholic Church or the religious right. You don't hear Methodist, Presbyterians Episcopalians railing against abortion. So my point is that this is really a religious issue where two religious groups Catholic and the Fundies, are trying to force their religious views as the legal law of the land.

And that legal view is that at conception, God gives the new organism a soul right there and then. so even the morning after pill would be the murder of a human being. My wife and I had a miscarriage when the fetus was 12 weeks. I wanted to see the fetus. The nurse explained there was nothing but blood and tissue.

The bottom line is the political group trying to outlaw abortion are not doing so on the basis of the Constitution or English common law. They are doing it on the basis of THEIR undrestanding of the Bible and the beliefs of their church. If you read their documents, they comment over and over "we are going to return our nation to the Christian values of our forefathers." That is a myth because it has only been in the last 100 years that even religious folks believed abortion was wrong. In the 19th century and before, abortion was OK as long as the mother hadn't felt the baby move. Once the mother or doctor felt the baby move than it was too late for an abortion. Of course they didn't have the modern equipment we have now.

The problem is we are letting the issue of abortion be decided by religious criteria, not constitutional criteria. Bad mistake. Shall we let the Jehovah's Witness ban blood transfusions next?

To the doctor:

I don’t' see where you tirade against Objectivism has much to do with abortion since abortion is a religious issue. I don't know enough to know if I agree or not with all the beliefs of Objectivism proponents or not. I just know that doesn't seem to relate to abortion to me at all.

If you're pro-life for unborn babies, you're "anti-life" according to Objectivist philosophy. It was in response to post #17, which is a re-stating of what Objectivism is. I didn't bring it up, sweetheart. My problems with Rand are multi-faceted, but the biggest thing that gets on my nerves is that most of her argument is based on flawed logic, as seen so clearly in the article quoted above. Her epistemology of direct realism is laughable. Rand believes we can attain complete objectivity (i.e. she just denies the fundamental problems of epistemology that have been around since Descartes).

And again, abortion is a moral issue, not explicitly a religious one. You can be agnostic and still be against abortion.

[img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img] I think if you have to get your parent's signature to go on a school field trip to the planetarium I don't see the big issue with letting a parent know when their child is going to make a life-altering decision. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img] @ "without coercion of an incestuous or egocentric parent." I guess getting an abortion should be equivalent to getting a library card, especially for a minor.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick @ Nov 3 2005, 04:55 AM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
If you're pro-life for unborn babies, you're "anti-life" according to Objectivist philosophy. It was in response to post #17, which is a re-stating of what Objectivism is. I didn't bring it up, sweetheart. My problems with Rand are multi-faceted, but the biggest thing that gets on my nerves is that most of her argument is based on flawed logic, as seen so clearly in the article quoted above. Her epistemology of direct realism is laughable. Rand believes we can attain complete objectivity (i.e. she just denies the fundamental problems of epistemology that have been around since Descartes).

And again, abortion is a moral issue, not explicitly a religious one. You can be agnostic and still be against abortion.
[/b][/quote]
Calling me sweatheart now! We are now debating the issue without hostile emotions. Thank you very much.

Now to your points about Objectivism. As I recall Miss Rand was not around when the Constitution was written. I will admit that I am totally ignorant of the woman and her philosophies. But then I don't care as I don't see her as revelent in this case.

Yes I see your point that abortion is a moral issue, not just a religious issue. So is drinking, being a vegetarian and a lot of other things.

So, I am not arguing for pro abortion. I am arguing for complete freedom of women to have control over thier bodies. But I feel that way about the end of life as well. I am not for deliberately killing a person who is terminal. But it is between the doctor, patient and family what care to give in thoee final hours. The government should stay out of it.

That is the way I feel about abortion. I just don't think the government should be involved. Doesn't mean I like abortion. I just don't like the fundies using specific religious beliefs to be against abortion.

Your arguemenjts are more plausable since you don't use religion as your basis for your position as I recall. We have all written so much now, who knows what each of us have written now for sure.

We all have learned through this discussoin. We might not have changed minds of people, but we all know more than we did before. At least that part has been good for all of us.

And the silent readers may have gained the most helping them make up for their own minds what to believe after hearing debate on both sides.

Freddie

Yeah, part of me would like a few hours of my life back, haha. I think moderation is the best policy, i.e. there may be different avenues towards the truth and the truth itself might be multivalent (especially in the case of abortion), but it kicks back at us if we're drastically wrong. i.e. we may not be able to tell whether theory a, b, or c accurately describes reality 100% since they all have plausibility, but we CAN rule out absurd theory D. And in this case, Objectivism is theory D. I'm not going to waste my time anymore dealing with a pseudo-intellectual Randroid who latches on to Objectivism in order to avoid any more serious thought. His portrayal of abortion as the most clear-cut moral issue of our time is bullshit and only true of people unwilling to engage in critical thinking over platitudes.

Dilznick, like i said I suggest you read more about objectivism from the source before you make assumptions about what it is. Everything you've said about it thus far has been false, and it reveals a weak mind not able to grasp the complicated concepts involved. All you have done is attack me, not my arguments, and you didn't even use your own ideas, you merely regurgitated another person's mistaken views on objectivism.
So I'm a randroid huh????
I Don't have to balls to think on my own?????
Why don't you remove the plank from your own eye before you start criticising the alleged speck in mine.

Also dilz.
Slavery and forced gestation of a fetus are not apples and oranges. This is not my opinion because I will now explain why it isn't.
Lets say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well. So we have two individuals. One of the individuals wishes to live, but can only live by sucking the blood from the other. The woman does not want to fetus to, she wants to not be pregnant. You say that it is the fetuses right to be fed by the woman, you are basically saying that fetus has a right to her blood, that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live. Blood is one of the most fundemental things that a person can own, it is their body, it is theirs. You say that one person has aright to another person's body based on their need, and that the other person has no right to their own body because they are not the one in need. the ultimate expression of one's body is what one does with their body, their work. Slavery as it is copmmonly understood is one person having the right of ownership of another person's body, and the fruit of another person's labor. Slavery is ownership of another persons body, the thought that one person can have the right to another person's body. Can you now see the correlation, or are you too thickheaded to think on your ownj as you accused me of doing????

In my opinion, yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live.[/b][/quote]
Nice logical jump there sans the necessary middle term. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img] So no, that's not at all what I was saying.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dr. Dilznick @ Nov 3 2005, 09:53 PM) Quoted post</div><div class='quotemain'>
In my opinion, yes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>that one person has a right to another persons blood simply because they need it to live.[/b][/quote]
Nice logical jump there sans the necessary middle term. [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img] So no, that's not at all what I was saying.
[/b][/quote]
ummm, do you notice that the first part where you say "in my opinion, yes" and the second part where you say that that wasn't what you were saying are contradictory???

But anway, so its your opinion that a baby has a right to the womans blood, do you care to give reasons why or is it just something you decided arbitrarily??

A fetus doesn't = any person.

I'll reply in more depth later.

Contradictory? Not at all.

Me: Yes, I believe I have the right to have casual sex. In my opinion of course.
Retard: Let's just say that you are a human being. A 9-year-old girl obviously is as well.
Me: Yes, and?
Retard: So you are saying that one human being has a right to have casual sex with another human being. You say that, for example, you have the right to have casual sex with a 9-year-old girl. So if you are pro-casual sex, you are pro-pedophilia.
Me: *slowly backs away*


Me: Yes, I believe the fetus has a "right to her blood." In my opinion of course.
You: Let's just say that a fetus is a human being. The woman obviously is as well.
Me: So?
You: So you are saying that one human being has a right to another human being's blood simply because they need it to live. You say that one human being has a right to another human being's body based on their need, and that the other human being has no right to their own body because they are not the one in need.
Me: Um, no? [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img]
You: So the other human being has no right to their own body. Which is equivalent to slavery. So if you are "pro-life" for unborn babies you are pro-slavery.
Me: [img]style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/anim_rolleyes.gif[/img]


Etc.


The slavery analogy doesn't hold. It is a false analogy for many reasons; the most important of which is that slavery didn't involve two beings in one body. This fact alone makes it an issue fundamentally different than the abortion issue.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But anway, so its your opinion that a baby has a right to the womans blood, do you care to give reasons why or is it just something you decided arbitrarily??[/b][/quote]
And yet, it is inevitable that an arbitrary line must be drawn. That is exactly what you're doing even if you don't realize it.

Anyway, my opinion is rooted in a) biology and b) the inherent value I find in human life.

a) Despite modern technology's ability to disconnect the two to an extent, sex and procreation are inextricably linked. This is the natural order of things. What was manufactured is the "right" to have sex without giving thought to its biological purpose.

b) I value all innocent lives equally and am against killing innocent human lives. I'll just quote myself again, someone could feel that objectively looking at cell division and carrying of unique human genetic code, as physical processes are no more or less valuable than that which human's term consciousness, and no more or less indicative of what it is to be human at the most basic level. By the way, the life support analogy doesn't hold; the passive nature of discontinuing life support is NOT the same as actively aborting (i.e. killing) a baby. Besides, the baby is no more independent two weeks after birth than two months before.

You refer to slavery as if it were just a historical occurance and not a concept, there is more to slavery than the egyptians and colonial america.


Yes, pregnancy is the natural consequence to sex, just liek sickness is the natural consequence to eating shit.

A fetus is not a "baby" please stop calling it that, a baby is commonly defined as a baby when it is born, I am against killing babies (look we agree!)

If taking a fetus out of the womb results in its death then it is passively discontinuing to sustain its life. I will agree that the aborting of fetuses that would be viable outside the womb would be murder. Refusing to keep something alive is not the same as killing it. The fetus will die, but all death is not murder. the fact is that the fetus acts as the aggressor. Nature is assaulting the woman against her will. She should be able to defend herself.

Your opinion is noted.

<!--QuoteBegin-GottaBigOne

A fetus is not a "baby" please stop calling it that, a baby is commonly defined as a baby when it is born, I am against killing babies (look we agree!)[/quote]

6 entries found for baby.
ba·by Audio pronunciation of "baby" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
n. pl. ba·bies

1.
1. A very young child; an infant.
2. An unborn child; a fetus.
3. The youngest member of a family or group.
4. A very young animal.

Is it your opinion that all there is are opinions and that no one has more merit than any other??? Then your opinion that is it all opinions has no more merit than mine either in your view. Does it????