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 unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


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

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This quote is from Mr Stolyarov's article in the dissent section on abortion. In said article he politely and rationally points out how rape victims who get pregnant have no right to an abortion because the futuristic certainty of a fetus being a human being means that you can't initiate force against it. In my personal opinion this is a complete and disgusting outrage. I listed this quote under humor though, because it makes me want to say "surely you must be joking." So I politely and rationally say to Mr. Stolyarov, bollocks!

Post 1

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 9:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It is interesting that this was Mr. Stolyarov's first SOLO contribution, and, to the discerning eye, the only contribution one needed to make some valid conclusions that are bourne out in more detail from his other articles. He's not an Objectivist, under any definition I have read. Just because he can come up with an interesting name for a fiction, such as 'futuristically certain,' does not make the fiction reflective of reality.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 5:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I wonder, how can one be certain of the future without being omniscient?

Post 3

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 10:38amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
never could understand those who just cannot or would not see the difference between potential and actual.... to me, this is like asking  ' when is a car a car as it goes down the assembly line? '... and it most certainly is not at the beginning!!

Post 4

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 1:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Greetings, gentlemen.

 

Scott DeSalvo:  >>[Stolyarov]'s not an Objectivist, under any definition I have read. Just because he can come up with an interesting name for a fiction, such as 'futuristically certain,' does not make the fiction reflective of reality.<<

 

How is it a fiction that the life you possess as an adult is not the same life you possessed as an embryo?

 

D.J. Glombowski:  >>I wonder, how can one be certain of the future without being omniscient?<<

 

I can be certain the sun will rise in the east tomorrow.  I can also be certain that a life will continue in the future unless force or natural causes exterminates it.

 

Robert Malcolm: >>never could understand those who just cannot or would not see the difference between potential and actual.... to me, this is like asking  ' when is a car a car as it goes down the assembly line? '... and it most certainly is not at the beginning!!<<

 

An unassembled car is not analogous to a human embryo.  An unassembled car is a group of components, if properly brought together, will become car.  Upon assembly is when a car begins.  So an unassembled car is akin to an unmated sperm and egg, the “unassembled” components of a new human being.  Upon conception is when a new human life is actualized. 

 

 

So, you gentlemen can gather from this that I’m in broad agreement with Mr. Stolyarov.  Even so, I would use Occam’s razor to eliminate Mr. Stolyarov’s term of art “futuristic certainty”.  He developed it to deal with the non-existent distinction many Objectivists make between potential and actual life at the embryonic stage of human development.  That distinction is a canard, the only purpose of which I can figure out is to rationalize an a priori political position with Objectivist principles.

 

The reason it is a canard is the law of identity.  A is A.  The life a human embryo possesses already exists.  The potentiality of life has been realized.  That life exists and will continue to exist as a single indivisible identifiable entity.  A fetus does not get a new life, nor does a newborn, a child, an adolescent, or an adult.  It is the same life throughout the continuum of the development of a human organism.  To deny this is to blank out.

 

So if abortion is to be justified, it must be on grounds other than the life of a human embryo is merely potential.

 

Regards,

Bill


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 3:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I agree, Scott. The SOLO debunking of this can be found here. Ah, happy days. I’m glad to see that that a year or so later, Stolyarov’s ideas haven’t caught on.

 

Stolyarov is either rationalizing or confused. It’s the tired old error of treating “initiation of force” as a primary. (Ah, but did Rand not sayeth, “Thou shalt not initiate force”?) You can’t even begin to talk about initiation of force until you have established rights. And rights derive from our nature. The fact that we have an independent, self-sustaining life is the basis for our right to life. The fact that we have an environment to move through and explore is the basis for our right to liberty.

 
The term “initiation of force” is pretty meaningless unless you’re talking about human beings. I initiated force against a carrot yesterday. Uh-oh! Moral quandary! The initiation of force is bad because it’s inimical to reason. To reason, you need (1) functioning sense organs to integrate data within (2) a dynamic environment to sense. The fact that we have the ability to reason (and all that requires) is the basis for freedom from the initiation of force. No reasoning (or pre-reasoning)? Then “initiation of force” is meaningless. End of debate.
(Edited by Glenn Lamont on 8/17, 3:57pm)


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 6

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 4:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Citizen Rat asks:

How is it a fiction that the life you possess as an adult is not the same life you possessed as an embryo?

This is answered by another question. What makes life valuable? What makes it worth living? What provides it with meaning?

 

For me, it’s: love; laughter; philosophy; work; play; checking out girls; music; logic; keeping fit; having sex; enjoying good wine and food; making decisions; making mistakes; a massive; complex range of emotions.

 

Does an embryo experience anything like this? Does it even come close to this, like a newborn might with exploration; wonder; experience; sensation; laughter; play?

 

That’s how it’s not the same.


Post 7

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 7:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Glenn.
 
All that's fine and well, but none of it changes the fact that it is still the same life.  If it is the same life, then it is the same organism that possesses it, and that organism is of course a human being.  As far as I know, we aren't in the busy of picking and choosing which human beings have a life worth living.
 
Regards,
Bill


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Tuesday, August 17, 2004 - 8:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Bill,

 

Once more around the mulberry bush.

 

The point is that they’re quite distinct concepts. They’re “not the same life” because one is a life and the other isn’t - and it’s a fiction to equate the two. A building block is not a building. Ayn Rand defined human life as the self-generating, self-sustaining process of a rational animal. Is an embryo self-generating and self-sustaining? No. I listed my own non-defining characteristics above. Does an embryo possess these capabilities? No.

 

This all changes if you define life by something else, arbitrarily. You could define a human life as “a possessor of human DNA.” But “a possessor of human DNA” would not make a useful standard of value for an ethical system. It’s not the possession of DNA that makes life worth living. It’s not the possession of DNA that makes you glad you’re alive. It’s those rational, self-generated actions I listed above.


Post 9

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 4:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, Glenn,
 
Bill said, "All that's fine and well, but none of it changes the fact that it is still the same life."

Technically, Bill is right. Life is a self-sustained process. The self-sustained process begins at implantation (not conception, since at that time, it is unknown how many organism might result) and lasts to the end of the individual's life. But the "life" is not a human life until it is born.

Birth is a transformation, a kind of, "metamorphosis," that changes an organism, incapable of sustaining its own life process (by breathing), to a being that begins to sustain itself and will until it dies. Though it is the same life, a caterpillar is not a butterfly.

Regi


Post 10

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regi,
I mostly agree with your post, except for two points - an embryo is not *self*-sustaining by any means, and the birth doesn't really 'transform' it - rather, I would say the transformation is the gradual development until the point where the fetus can survive outside the mother's body (5 months).

Phil

Post 11

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:22amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Glenn.

I do understand your point.  It does not lack validity regarding one's assessment of his own life.  However, it is nonsensical to damn an embryonic human being for not yet enjoying life in a manner only an adult human being can.

My point is that metamorphosis or not, pace Regi, the organism that was in the womb of its mother is the same one the mother gives birth to and the same one twenty years later who is an adult human being.  That organism is a human being throughout its existence.  As a human being, we properly judge by what it does, not by what it is.

Therefore, abortion can only be justified in terms of what an embryonic or fetal human being does, not by the mere fact that it is not a fully rational volitional adult.

Regards,
Bill


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 6:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Regi.

I thought you and I weren't going to get into this debate. ;)

>>Birth is a transformation, a kind of, "metamorphosis," that changes an organism, incapable of sustaining its own life process (by breathing), to a being that begins to sustain itself and will until it dies. Though it is the same life, a caterpillar is not a butterfly.<<

Yes, but it is the same organism.

Question:  A newborn will die unless others care for it.  Would I be correct in stating that you believe the parents of the newborn have an obligation to administer that care?

Regards,
Bill


Post 13

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
mythology dies hard, doesn't it, regi.... or, perhaps in some person's case, once a religionist, always a religionist...

Post 14

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 5:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Greetings.

To those who continue to dogmatically hold to the potential/actual dichotomy, I hereby present an excerpt from "Schieder v. Stolyarov: An Abortion Debate: Round 2," which demonstrates that there are not only those two states available to an entity. There are in fact six known ones, and there could be more as well: http://www.geocities.com/rational_argumentator/Schieder_v_Stolyarov2.html

The impossible: That which has never happened and can never happen. (The existence of God, for example)

The formerly possible: That which could happen in the past, but cannot happen in the future (The spontaneous formation of complex molecules on Earth, for example, as the Earth no longer has a reducing atmosfere).

The formerly existing: That which has been an actuality (not a mere possibility) in the past, but is an actuality no longer (The existence of dinosaurs, for example) 

The potential (or futuristically uncertain): That which has not yet happened, and can take place in one of many alternative ways. (This is a state applicable only to volition. For example, I could wear a red shirt or a blue shirt tomorrow, or I could choose some other color of shirt. Inanimate matter cannot follow one of many paths.)

The futuristically certain: That which has not yet happened, but will definitely take place in the future given certain present conditions (and absent volitional intervention). (This subsumes anything regarding the changes and processes exerted by inanimate matter, non-volitionally-conscious organisms, and the involuntary functions of the human body).

The actual: That which exists in the present moment (My computer, for example).

In layman’s terms, the six states can be referred to as:

  • Cannot be
  • Could have been
  • Was
  • Could be
  • Will be
  • Is

Please note that “potential” or “futuristic uncertainty” is in a certain regard the opposite of “futuristic certainty” or “mechanistic determinacy,” to use another term.  

 

This exposition clearly shows that, not merely is the fetus not a potential (i.e. futuristic uncertainty), but it is in fact the opposite of a potential! (According to Aristotle, the opposite of "A is X" is "A is not X." Thus, the opposite of "The fetus is futuristically certain" is "The fetus is futuristically not certain" or "The fetus is futuristically uncertain.")

 

Is this the insight for which Mr. Dawe dares to call me "evil" without warrant? If so, then the true nemesis lurks within his psyche!

 

I am
G. Stolyarov II
Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator
Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store
Author, Eden against the Colossus
Chief Administrator, Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund
Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917Atlas Count 917  



Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 15

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
even if we accept this new concept, "futuristic certainty", this does not delegitimate abortion. no human is to be expected to sacrifice its interests to the interest of any other human being. there are no duties. in the words of Max Stirner, "Away with every concern that is not my concern!". what this means that, if a lifeform is such that its existence depends on parasiting off of me, I am fully entitled to abandon it and let it die. I am endutied to sacrifice my interest to nothing. the parasitical organism is necessarily a conflict of interest with its host, unless the host comes to see some egoistic selfish value in putting up with the parasite. that the parasite at some future time will become nonparasitic is besides the point. No one is endutied to put up with the 9 months and 15-20 years of servitude demanded by this parasite while it becomes a self sufficient rational animal. it is the host's perogative to abandon the parasite at any time. if the parasite is such that it will die without the support of the host, this is not the host's problem. abortion is simply the act mommy shrugging off the ignorant, repulsive looters (who in their right mind would actually inflict upon themselves the tortures of having to be around a child for so long?) who wish to take 15-20 years of her life away into drudgery and servitude. now, of course, if the mother, for whatever reason, decides that the pregnancy is a project worth her time, this ir her perogative also-- but she has no duty to sacrifice herself in order to support a being which cannot support itself.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 4
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 4
Post 16

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I call you evil because you are. No daring required. The fetus is not a certainty with the exception of volitional action as you say. Natural events and accidents can all cause miscarriages that can extinguish the potential from becoming the actual without volitional intervention. You should find some good statistics on miscarriage. It's a lot more frequent than most think. You look at a situation where a rational actual being has a potential being inside her, either through choice, chance (birth control not being 100%,) or force and say that dependant potential has more rights than the actual being. I say more rights because you say that she may not choose not to abort the pregnancy. You deny her control over her own body. You seize her property and safety. You remove her rights and give them to a potential. That is EVIL. So, go ahead and unsanction me and write another article about how this is all okay. You are still wrong. You show your true colors more and more. You would twist free will, life, and joy all into a formal little frigid world that fits your beliefs and claim that it is compatible with Objectivism. I know longer care how polite you are, you approve of the initiation of force and mask it in lengthy treatises and polite forms of address. I suggest you walk away from your keyboard for awhile and venture out into the world. Live a little beyond the world of ideas.

Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, August 18, 2004 - 7:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

Question:  A newborn will die unless others care for it.  Would I be correct in stating that you believe the parents of the newborn have an obligation to administer that care?
 
No. They are free to put it out for adoption.

I thought you and I weren't going to get into this debate. ;)
 
What debate? You made a mistake and I corrected it. You have asked me a question and I answered it. I'm not debating anything.

 
Regi




Post 18

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 5:48amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Robert.

You wrote regarding maternal obligations:  >>no human is to be expected to sacrifice its interests to the interest of any other human being.<<

I do not agree that this principle applies to parents, whose willful acts created a new human being.  Nevertheless, I have sanctioned your post (which I seldom do), because I admire your honesty.  No fussing, fudging, or evasion about what a human embryo or fetus is.  You acknowledge the plain fact that it is a human being and then follow the logical of your principles of self-interest as to who has what if any obligations to that human being.

Finally, an intellectually honest Objectivist on the subject of abortion (and parenthood).

Regards,
Bill


Post 19

Thursday, August 19, 2004 - 6:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Regi.

I thank you for your willingness to correct my mistakes, especially because I do make a lot of them.  However, I'm not so sure I made one here.  You answered my question with: "No. They are free to put it out for adoption."  To me that would suggest the parents are ensuring the care of their child.

But are they obligated to do so?  Is the child a parasite, like Robert says?  Therefore, would the parents be morally correct to abandon the newborn to fend for itself?  If an obligation does exist to care for the child, when does it attach to the parents?

I don't ask these questions to fence with you, Regi.  You know what I think:  Upon conception a human being is created, and its parents have an obligation to care for it until it can fend for itself.  What interests me is the genuine Objectivist resolution of this issue.  I see a conflict regarding abortion between an Objectivism that demands that we are responsible for the consequences of our actions and an Objectivism that enshrines self-interest as the highest moral principle.

I see the "official" Objectivist resolution of this conflict by simply defining a human being so as to exclude the unborn as an evasion.  This evasion informs me that most Objectivists may be a little squeamish about the hard logic of self-interest, as forthrightly propounded by Robert, when it comes to abortion.  If they are squeamish about it, perhaps that is because they believe something immoral occurs in an abortion.  If so, why not say so?

I'm a smart enough guy to know when an argument does not add up.  The argument that abortion is OK because what's in the womb isn't a human being doesn't add up.  I'm not interested in beating anyone up over this.  I would just like to understand why it has such resilience with Objectivists who, unlike feminists and other irrational sorts, should know better.

Regards,
Bill

P.S.  I am asking you this not because you are an Objectivist, but because you are an astute observer of them.


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.