If I go skiing and break a leg, does that mean you think I shouldn't go to the hospital to have it treated because that's a consequence of the act and I should abide by the potential outcome?

Mike, I'm sorry but I don't recognize that all morality is choice and while I suppose that one might choose a moral code with a catalog of ethical actions, that makes me very uncomfortable with the integrity of that person. Where does individual reasoning and logic fit with such an action?

Blarman, I do not (as you claim) "accept abortion as a moral value." You are picking a fight, but I am not in the ring. You demand to know form me what the (moral) standard is. That is easy: it is the life of the person. You demand that I "draw a line in the sand" for you to see. I have said that perhaps no such line exists. Many hairless apes over the age of 21 apparently are not human. But last night, my wife found a cricket in the kitchen and put a cup over it; and in the morning, I tossed it outside. We even do the same for the Pre-Cambrian Cockroaches who wander in... It is our choice, based on our standard for our lives. You might disagree. Clearly _objective_ standards are not _absolute_ standards ... and neither are they subjective whims.

Note, however, that Nathaniel Branden identified "chocolate versus vanilla" issues for which no absolute or objective standards exist.

Rather than demanding that I provide you with a stuffed mannikin to whack with a stick of your choosing, it might be more fruitful for you to explain why an entity that cannot speak for itself is a human being.

I might say that the child is independently alive when it says the word "I". See Star Trek:Next Generation "Measure of a Man" courtroom scene here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PMlDidy...

Zen, you and I are at loggerheads here: we do not disagree on _a_ point, but on several, all of which are underlain by a principle. To take the last point first, I never completed my private pilot's certificate before the FAA yanked my privileges for failing a medical - it happens - but I have 100 hours in the cockpit and 50 of those solo. I know that flying requires a commitment to reality. See my down-pointed post on "The Virtues of Aviation Culture" here in the Gulch: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts/bc...

(2) I have no idea what you mean when you say, "Your morality has justified the killing, in atrocious ways, of millions of human beings and the total obliteration of dozens of other cultures." When you speak of "your morality" what are you talking about? I must insist that you recognize (though not agree with) my assertion that all morality is choice. One does not choose morality. You can choose a moral CODE, and from that a catalog of ethical actions (or inactions).

So draw the line for me. Tell me when personhood is achieved and rights are obtained.

This is a critical point of philosophy, because if one chooses to take the view that one gets to apply an arbitrary standard to when a person obtains rights, it very literally throws any Objective measures out the window. If I judge another person NOT to have achieved personhood, all my Objective stance can conveniently be set aside and I can initiate force, I can be altruistic, I can do whatever I choose and I can rationalize all this behavior by claiming that I'm not violating my Objectivism because I wasn't really dealing with "people", but some lesser ... something.

To clarify, I was not addressing the legality of abortion. I believe that's settled for now.

I am not talking about Absolutism. I am talking about the slippery slope you choose to live on when you accept abortion as a moral value.

I want to know where on that slope "personhood" begins and rights are obtained according to Objectivism. I want to know the standard. If you can not define it and draw a line in the sand for me to see, I would submit that you are not actually using an objective standard at all - but a subjective one.

Now, now Mike; I really don't pay attention to what a fictional character says or doesn't say. As to Rand, I don't think she denied a metaphysical god as much as she rejected superstition and mysticism as a solid or realistic grounding for decisions in the world of reality. As to "moral teachings of 2500 years", I only point you to the Inquisition as an example of 'moral teachings'. Your morality has justified the killing, in atrocious ways, of millions of human beings and the total obliteration of dozens of other cultures.

Her speech was at the Air Force Academy which is an institution based on science. There is no room for superstition when flying an airplane at Mach 3 or 4 against an enemy that wants to destroy you and your plane.

How do you determine intent without of a legal proceeding? The accused must be called. Evidence must be presented. Yesterday on NPR All Things Considered, they reported on a woman in El Salvador who had a miscarriage and - all abortion being murder there - was subjected to a police inquiry to determine if she aborted the fetus, or if it was a miscarriage. That is a logical consequence of assuming that abortion is murder.

You know quite well how many times John Galt referenced God. If you do not, you can read it for yourself. Not only did Rand deny the metaphysical God, she overwhelmed the followers of God with the facts of the consequences of their action. That is why Ayn Rand was proud to have challenged the moral teachings of 2500 years.

You do not understand Objectivism. It is not Absolutism. Metaphysical truths and physical facts are absolute: the sun; atoms; even the statistical quanta fields. Human action is not Absolute: it is Objective.
Human nature is absolute, as an aspect of physical reality. A young child can find a police officer and lodge a complain against her parents. That is objective. An embryo cannot. That is an absolute.

what it is akin to, is an argument for welfare. or for having certain skills you owe to others. IF you didn't want to owe it, you should not have developed the skill. fetuses are parasites by definition. Precious parasites, but parasites nonetheless. A pregnant female should not be forced to carry it to term against her will. Neither you or I can make that choice for her. We can and should influence however.

But of course it does. You said so yourself in the next sentence: "...which anyone can agree with or not, in part or in whole..." I can agree with the general approach and futz with the content to my little heart's delight. Its that 'free will' thing.

Jan

So define human. If you can.

By that reasoning, those with Asberger's, Down's Syndrome, etc. have no rights. What about others who only later on in life lose their ability to reason, such as with Parkinson's or Alzheimer's? Do they then devolve into non-humans?

You truly do choose a slippery slope as soon as you start saying that some life is intrinsically more valuable than others - especially when you have no idea what that life is going to achieve later.

I have two nephews whose birth mother did hard drugs while pregnant with them. She was eventually forced to give them up to child protective services when she chose to do drugs rather than take care of her children. But as a result of her actions, those two children are growing up with serious mental issues of addiction, behavioral disorders, etc. My sister-in-law and her husband were unable to have children and took these two into their home - first as foster parents and finally in adoption. My sister-in-law is an RN, and she had no choice but to continue to give powerful drugs to these two from the time she assumed care for them. They are being gradually weaned off the drugs, but it will take some time before that happens and they have suffered some permanent brain damage as a result.

Do the actions of this mother constitute child abuse - ie did the actions of this mother contravene their rights? Please explain why or why not.

I am not sure why you bring this point up. If Mr. Washington would through his opinion force Mrs. Washington against her will to carry a fetus to term thenit would be immoral. The pregnant female gets to decide what she is willing to do with her body and who she is willin
Whom she is willing to support. When life begins is irrelevant to the moral obligation to care for and nurture. Earlier I think blarman said something about options. Yes, encouraging and persuading a pregnant female to consider adoption would be ideal -however to completely refuse to acknowledge the risks involved in pregnancy and delivery is irrational. That a pregnant female should be forced to put the life she carries above her own life i.e. abortion is murder, is morally abhorrent. That she finds herself in an unwanted pregnancy-the accident or bad decision on her part is irrelevant to her choice to carry the fetus to term. Doing everything possible to make that decision easier for her (reducing the risks, incentive) should be encouraged in a society. but claims of murder if she chooses not to take the risks of carrying a fetus to term?

The decision is either black and white, or it is a nebulous grey. You choose to support the nebulous grey and then complain when I ask you to tell me how you came to your decision about which shade of grey is the turning point. There is no need to get defensive. Simply explain your rationale. If it is arbitrary, simply acknowledge it as such. If it is grounded in logical deduction, lead me through your thought process.

Does the absolute exist? Absolutely. ;) It may not be what you want, but it nevertheless exists as an alternative.