Start of a life

Dean,

That trade with others is a part of the Objectivist derivation of rights does not imply that someone you are unlikely to trade with doesn’t have rights.

Either a person is an individual and therefore has rights, or they are not. A poodle groomer on the other side of the planet is unlikely to ever trade with me—this fact does not impinge on the question of her rights.

Likewise, a developed, viable fetus is either a person with rights, or they are not. Their prodigality doesn’t matter to the question.

You also seem to say that a rationally selfish woman would never have a child:

“…currently productive rationally selfish woman, taking the side of the developed, capable, and proven over the undeveloped, incapable, and unproven.

But right, in most cases, such a woman would never reach that state of the pregnancy.”

Could you explain this?

Jon

Post 21

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 1:42pm

Gentlemen, there are alternatives to birth through a scalpel. Even a women who is as far away as 7 (earlier even) months gestation can give birth painlessly, and early, through some awesome drug developments (progesterone brings on labor, and spinal anesthesia makes labor virtually painless). Any women who doesn't want to be considered for entry into an asylum would opt for this alternative, should last minute child birthing issues arise.
It's just too gruesome for me to think about aborting in the viable/viable late term for whim. Very disturbing. It's difficult for me NOT to think life didn't begin the month one of my kids was due, or the month before when they kept me up all night moving around.

Maybe that's what it is, Jon. We have kids we wanted to have, that's why we think life starts before birth, but I honestly can't keep my emotions out of it to know for a fact it does.

Dean:
The law in some states (California, Idaho, and Pennsylvania for example) give the option to prosecute if a fetus dies through a criminal act, even though there is no actual "child" that was killed. Should a fetus die, but a mother live (or die), through a violent crime, those responsible can be held on actual murder charges, especially if the fetus has reached the point of viability.
Is the law in these states wrong? Because these potential infants were anticipated and wanted by their parents, does that give the law it's weight, I wonder? How could justice better be served for the parents of a murdered 8.9 month old fetus if homicide isn't an option? Should fetal death through violent crime even be considered in law?

Post 22

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 2:07pm

To put it mildly, y'all are engaging in the 'fallacy of the lifeboat', the very defining issue of how y'all really see the universe. For shame. Ethics and rights are not about lifeboat situations.

Post 23

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 2:14pm

Robert,

What lifeboat situation do you mean to accuse us of discussing?
Pregnancies and births are utterly common. Indeed no one you have ever met didn’t originate in a pregnancy and get born. I don’t understand.

Jon

Post 24

Sunday, January 22, 2006 - 2:42pm

Teresa,

Gentlemen, there are alternatives to birth through a scalpel. Even a women who is as far away as 7 (earlier even) months gestation can give birth painlessly, and early, through some awesome drug developments (progesterone brings on labor, and spinal anesthesia makes labor virtually painless). Any women who doesn't want to be considered for entry into an asylum would opt for this alternative, should last minute child birthing issues arise.

Thanks Teresa, you have noted technology that makes #2 and #3 true through a good portion of pregnancy.

Should fetal death through violent crime even be considered in law?

Absolutely. It's her body, and 1-5 are true, the violent crime has destroyed the developing human being, and it is against the will of the mother, he has used her body in a way that she did not consent to.

Jon,

“…currently productive rationally selfish woman, taking the side of the developed, capable, and proven over the undeveloped, incapable, and unproven.

But right, in most cases, such a woman would never reach that state of the pregnancy.”

Could you explain this?

What I meant was a rationally selfish woman would not normally get all the way to the 8th month of pregnancy before discovering or choosing that she doesn't want the baby. Given a rationally selfish woman, she would immediately set out to make the best decision on whether to keep the baby or not as soon as she discovers that she is pregnant. It is most likely that if she decided to have the baby, she would act to make sure that baby lives and succeeds in life. It is most likely that if she decided not to have the baby, she would act to make sure that she does not have the baby. Its extremely unlikely that she would change her mind all the way into the 7th or 8th month, but I think it could be possible if she learns something new or the context changes.

Post 25

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 7:45am

I have never bought the 'parasite' analogy. The mechanism of human reproduction is simply the way mammals reproduce. Reality-Indentity, you are Os you get it.

Single-celled organisms reproduce by a process called mitosis. During the process a bud forms that takes nourishment and genetic material from the original or 'parent' cell; it grows and eventually separates becoming a wholly new entity.

Would a biologist observing the intermediary process consider the bud a parasite or would his conclusion be that this is simply the way the species reproduces?

Post 26

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 8:49am

Robert,

Fair enough. I don’t like it, either. You are right that it is strictly incorrect. However, insofar as the fetus cannot sustain its own physiological functions and requires the capacities of the woman’s body to survive, the analogy does hold. It is also true that this is how mammals reproduce, but that fact doesn’t alter the point being made: That the fetus will eventually be able to sustain its own body, but it hasn’t reached that point yet.

Jon

Post 27

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 9:24pm

Jon wrote: " With means available in a cave, the fetus must be extractable and then capable of independent viability."

How is that not dropping context?

As for:

Jon wrote "...power to exist as a separate entity."

I'd alter that to 'separate reasoning entity'.

If you're going to maintain the 'means available in a cave' level of technology, then, certainly, a newborn, a toddler, or even young children lack the physical abilities and knowledge required to exist for long in the kind of environment that seemed to be implied earlier.

When discussing when the natural rights of a human being begin, biological realities need to be considered. So you have, at the start:

-Pregnant Woman

Given that, there are background issues that should be touched upon:

-A male involved somehow, or artificial insemination, and the level of development that is required to support it (eg, it's not an 'in a cave' situation)

-Some kind of society that passed on a level of knowledge sufficient for that woman to survive to childbearing age.
(Edited by Jason Kauppinen
on 1/24, 9:35pm)

Post 28

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 9:33pm

Dean wrote: " I'm simply declaring the principle that no one and absolutely nothing intrinsically has the "right" to another's property, time, thoughts, resources, etc."

What about child abandonment?
(Edited by Jason Kauppinen
on 1/24, 9:35pm)

(Edited by Jason Kauppinen
on 1/24, 9:36pm)

Post 29

Tuesday, January 24, 2006 - 9:42pm

Child abandonment in the middle of the wilderness, or child abandonment at the local foster home?

Post 30

Wednesday, January 25, 2006 - 8:43am

Abandonment in cities/town. i.e. the "baby in a dumpster" phenomenon.

Post 31

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 8:36am

Good point Jason.

Thursday, January 26, 2006 - 10:44pm

Given that an infant wah infant doesn't have the capabilities of an adult human, the ethics involved lead to somewhat different action.

In a life-threatening emergency situation of course it is not altruistic to help someone, that aid stems from valuing one's own life itself. (see "The Ethics of Emergencies")

Naturally if it's an adult human being, that human will resume providing for himself/herself after the emergency is over. The rescued human doesn't have an unlimited claim to anyone else's resources, and the person on the scene isn't ethically obligated to provide unlimited aid for an unlimited period either.

For an infant, the emergency is greater due to the fact that the infant has a different level of capabilities. He/She is a human being that has yet to develop the ability to provide for themself, so the level of emergency help rendered to a baby or child is simply going to be greater as a result of this.

So emergencies would be the exception to the "no one and absolutely nothing intrinsically has the "right" to another's property, time, thoughts, resources, etc." and the infant in an emergency would be the exceptional exception.

Post 33

Friday, January 27, 2006 - 6:31am