wlcm.

:) thx!

Sorry -- just abbreviated "hard ass" from a previous post.

blarman, I apologize for not thanking you before, for the same reason... :)

Since NOTA has not been an available choice wherever I've voted... ever... I've often chosen "the lesser of two weevils"... at least for the past five or ten presidential elections... :)

ah, hoping that Some Day....

H.A.? some kind of Atheist? elucidate on me, ok?
:)

First of all, thanks for a rational reply.

"If neither side can produce a scientifically-justified or provable 'argument' ..."

Then I submit that we should feel compelled to keep looking until we find one. The implications of the answers to this question are staggering - not only to philosophy but to being. I am wholly unsatisfied with an unanswered question one way or the other, but for a question such as this... It is like the flat earth. I want to set sail and determine the reality of the matter one way or the other. To simply give up is to me anathema. It is for the lazy intellect.

I am not seeking consensus, but reality. The universe doesn't really care what we think about it. ;) I want to know when I began. I want to know the choices that lay before me. I can not properly evaluate my decisions until I can quantify such, and I certainly can not plot a course without knowing where I started, where I want to go, and where I am now.

"Of two evils choose the lesser."
By not voting, you may be getting either Clinton or Biden or even someone worse (although I can hardly imagine that). Even A.R. voted and even campaigned for a presidential candidate. She realized that FDR, a liberal icon, was terribly bad for the country. His opponent, Dewey, wasn't up to her standards and I'm sure she knew it.

We're all ourselves. We are the one we cannot escape. But must of the people I know who call themselves Objectivists don't want to escape and are quite comfortable in their own skin. You appear to be one of them, you H..A., you.

Well-stated, and clearly-stated, b...
but...
If neither side can produce a scientifically-justified or provable 'argument' for its side, MAYBE that's really a red herring brought in to confuse the 'discussion' and prolong it, rather than find any consensus of ANY kind that is acceptable to everyone.

I postulate that such an 'acceptable to everyone consensus' is impossible to achieve, so what is the value in continuing to demand one "before we can move forward"?

Yes, other than imminent danger to the fetus' host, pretty much all abortions are 'for convenience,' why does and Objectivist insist that Convenience is NOT a rational choice in the first place?

I liken it to a 'discussion' I tried to have with one guy many decades ago about the hypothetical "a guy accosts you in a dark alley and says, 'I'm going to kill you... would you prefer me to do it with a gun or a knife?' "

My 'opponent' didn't like my position that 'you' in that scenario, Had A Choice... he insisted that there Was No Choice Available Because 'You' Would End Up Dead either way!

I insisted that the 'gun or knife' remained A Choice whether your death was 'inevitable' or not!

Fruitless 'discussion.'

So, if most abortions are for 'convenience,' why is that abhorrent 'because there's not scientific proof...,etc.?'

They both come close, but this atheist can't wholeheartedly support (or vote for) any of the Republicans... when it comes to Personal Freedoms like Right to Choose, I haven't found any whose positions aren't based on strict religious foundations.

But that's nothing new for me, either! When a Democrat starts talking "economics" they lose me quickly, too. I find most 'libertarians' to be mostly religious conservatives...

NOTA is my most frequent choice... :(

Not to me, but that's me...
:)

What comment are you replying to?

You seem to have slain a bunch of 'strawmen' created from presumption.

I have every right to question any part of Rand's philosophy I choose. I reject the claim that she is infallible. To make such a claim is to put her in the position of the very God you claim to deny exists. And you want to chastise me for being a religionist!

Each and every scientific theory is subject to validation and re-verification. Rand's ideas are no exception, and I seriously doubt that she would attempt to justify her positions based on the fallacy of appeal to authority. I simply and accurately point out the fallacy. You are welcome to ignore it at your own peril.

If the woman was free to choose to have sex, the ramifications were selected by her - not imposed upon her. Your argument is again the argument of convenience trumping consequence. The universe is not subject to our whims or desires for convenience. A is A.

Since Objectivism demands proof for its positions, so do I. That is the entire problem in the pro-abortion argument: there is nothing scientific about it. It is based on convenience - nothing more, nothing less.

The problem we are confronted with is when to recognize consciousness and the bestowal of rights. You admit that we have no objective way to determine the presence of consciousness and this is my entire point: as an Objectivist, you should be concerned with that reality. That you and many others on this forum are not troubled concerns me greatly, because the whole of the philosophy itself is based on natural rights. If one can manipulate the entire philosophy based on a subjective nature of when those rights are bestowed, it undermines the entire philosophy!

If one can not make an objective determination on a matter, one is left with the subjective - fraught with all its personal biases and decisions based on imperfect information and flawed assumptions. Such is a treacherous path, and one which Objectivism denounces - unless I have read it wrong. That any who call themselves Objectivists would defend the subjectively-based decision seems not only illogical, but rather hypocritical.

No one makes the argument that if it were left to develop normally, that the fetus would not result in a human being replete with consciousness and rights. Instead, the attempt is made to justify the argument of convenience by claiming that humanity isn't present at conception but at some later point in time - all without any evidence! Furthermore, such advocates can not even come to a scientifically-supported consensus on what point in time qualifies! Rand advocated birth, but that point is unsupported by scientific advances. There is nothing about passage through the birth canal to bestow rights as evidenced by the Caesarian sections being so commonly performed in this day. Science confirms that a heartbeat and brainwave patterns are present only a few weeks into development. And science has also determined that the fetus has enough self-awareness to exhibit pain and to try to move away from danger (if fish in a barrel have much room to move). Even according to the biological definition of life, a fertilized egg certainly qualifies. It is bewildering to me that these scientific observations are so casually dismissed when the viability of the entire philosophy hinges on the identification and recognition of consciousness!

I do not have proof. Though I would love to claim otherwise, I can not claim that I have invented a device for ascertaining the presence of consciousness. Thus being put in an unenviable position, I look at the ramifications of each proposed course of action. I see no way Objectivism is harmed (unless Objectivism is really just a front for convenience) by erring on the side of caution. So Rand made a judgement call that turned out to be in error. Not a big deal to me. To hold her as infallible seems ridiculous to me - such is the zealot's argument, not the realist's. I see tremendous harm, however, in the subjective identification of consciousness and rights assignment, as evidenced by Margaret Sanger, Hitler, and many others throughout just our age alone. If rights are universal and inherent as claimed by Objectivism, then the right to life is not subject to utility. It is a binary decision - not an analog one. If, however, one sides with a utilitarian viewpoint on life, one must necessarily accept and endorse the viewpoint that not all life is worth being permitted to live.

You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions about the matter you choose. You can either be persuaded by the argument of convenience, or you can be persuaded by the arguments of observation and rational conclusion.

You are not going to find any candidate that is viable by Objectivism standards. The closest is probably Rand Paul who looks as if he doesn't stand a chance. As to Carson, I understand his religious premises, and while they are the typical fantasies most of his premises are rooted in rationality.

I thought that it's kind of obvious.

... and the 'damned important result' is????
You kinda didn't specify... :)

'just' my POV, Herb, but from the get-go, I've found Carson to appear to be the brightest, most articulate candidate on the GOP side... maybe forever.

But... his 'arguments', although stated calmly and beautifully, still harken back to religious roots which are unprovable, such as 'when does life begin,' which is the foundation for virtually all abortion discussions from conservatives.

And I can not find any rational (Objectivist?) basis for their positions. It's ALL consensus and agreement that 'they're right and everyone else is wrong' followed by "we want the law to say This and That and You To Obey The Laws We Write."

He's a great speaker, very intelligent, learned, educated, but still coming from a religious foundation, and I just can't buy that.

-- my Never-So-Humble Opinion... imnsho.
:)

so if Carson says PP is making profit off 'sale of body parts' and PP says they charge for the "shipping and overhead costs" of collecting and delivering the 'parts', one of them is fucking lying.

From the way he answered the question in the video, I think Carson's the one lying.

amen, and from that video, I've never heard him put forth lousier 'arguments for his position' ... ever.
Any support or even admiration for him from me is now gone, although he still may be the brightest and most articulate potential candidate...

His "arguments" in defense of his positions and beliefs were unbelievably weak and thin.

lol! Get a life and leave me alone

The Carson interview you linked to was entirely about the consequences of his religious views on abortion and fetal tissue research. I didn't "bring that to the table". He did when he was interviewed, and you did when you linked to it. Rejection of his views which you linked to is not changing the topic. You cannot in logic declare a rejection of his statements and your evaluation of his interview as off topic because it isn't the reaction you wanted and insist on. Carson's calm public demeanor does not change what he said and is not a reason to accept his traditional religious conservatism. It is you became unglued when I straightforwardly challenged his interview as a reason to vote for him. It is you, then Blarman and Brenner, who launched the vitriolic attacks in the face of debate. I did not "demean others who don't share my views", I rejected your obnoxious personal attacks and accusations, and insisted on a position you do not want to see. Rejecting the smears of a mudslinger is not an inappropriate attack on the slinger. You are responsible for the tone you created for the thread, which is much worse than "argumentative".