All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by chad 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Met a nurse in an airport once who was waiting on a plane. She began the discussion stating that since the brain is still forming and developing for the first five years after birth that awareness of self is not possible until after this formation. Her reasoning was therefore since this was true if you didn't like how a child was turning out up that point getting rid of them would be okay.
    I am not aware of a study that incorporates the idea that there is a life force other than just the chemical reactions and electrical discharges sustaining life and enabling reason. I think there is more to life that just a biological function. What this is (religion likes to refer to it as a soul) is not understood. When does this life force enter the new being? I have no idea.
    Interesting that under the law if a woman wants the child and is murdered then it is two counts of murder. If the woman does not want the child it is okay to kill it. No discussion that this is another person not just a collection of cells.
    Difficult questions. Since the fetus resists the dismemberment and destruction is it self aware?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Rand's Ethical Theory: Rational Egoism — Rand's ethic of self-interest is integral to her advocacy of classical liberalism. Classical liberalism, more often called “libertarianism” in the twentieth century, is the view that individuals should be free to pursue their own interests. This implies, politically, that governments should be limited to protecting each individual’s freedom to do so. In other words, the moral legitimacy of self-interest implies that individuals have rights to their lives, their liberties, their property, and the pursuit of their own happiness, and that the purpose of government is to protect those rights. Economically, leaving individuals free to pursue their own interests implies in turn that only a capitalist or free market economic system is moral: Free individuals will use their time, money, and other property as they see fit, and will interact and trade voluntarily with others to mutual advantage.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That is why they're here. It's a common thread among a very neat group of people who have various takes on many things. Our appreciation for her work and philosophy is strong enough to make this a pretty unique online forum.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Govopoly. This is basically what she describes in Atlas Shrugged with the purchasing of influence and how, ultimately, the government is the omnipotent decision maker. The creator of the term I'm using, Govopoly, just describes it as a natural stage of a society and something he excepts. I still struggle with that take, myself. I have seen the destruction of innocent people that results from it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What was her drug usage? Long ago I asked if she was a pot smoker because of her lusty description of the cigarette with the dollar sign on it...how it made Dagny feel. Haha...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I consider 'pro life' and 'pro choice' as dishonesty. They suck one into forgoing choice in the former and discarding life in the latter. Honesty would require something like 'anti-abortion' and 'pro abortion' along with detailed definitions of the terms.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You have to put up with a lot of politics, background religion, pseudo-science, and non-evidential medical stuff along with all other types of human beliefs with a bit of rational thought to make things point toward reality.

    I liked her ability to reason but had trouble with her personality, in particular with her drug usage. I could not see how she would be able to have nearly cultish followers in the 'collective'.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by lrshultis 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A fetus having human cells begets the question as to when a fetus can be considered as a person with a functioning rational self developing and thus be murdered. My brother-in-law believes that at the instant of the sperm and ovum combining, a person with a self comes into being. What new knowledge about fetal development counters Rand's opinion? When does consciousness with any awareness of self begin?
    Most of the answers to such questions here seem to be from those who were forced to believe that they are dependent for a god making them who they are rather than being in charge of creating their own selves as they mature after birth.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Most never think of the Body inside of them...it has no choices...how would they like their outcome, their life, their future decided for them. When pregnant...it's not Just their Body...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by teri-amborn 2 years, 5 months ago
    Personally I've read everything of Ayn's works that I could get my hands on. She was a remarkable thinker and a great devotee of reality and reason.

    Having said that, she was also an advocate of science. The further that science has progressed from 1973 the more that we have learned about early developing life.

    Ayn's advocacy of "tabula rasa" as how babies come into this world is being proven wrong scientifically.

    In addition, many women who have had abortions have faced the emotional turmoil of the positives and negatives of such decisions and have had second thoughts about their actions. Sometimes hindsight is 20-20. Don't ignore those who have regrets. They have much to teach.

    My suggestion is:
    1) Follow the science when making new laws.
    2) Tell her the truth and then let her decide.

    It's ultimately up to the woman.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    G , again we are on the right track. Certainly some abnormalities that do not result in a miscarriage are a reasonable consideration. In regards to Ayn’s Position on abortion, today many more things would likely need to be considered. Specifically the $ made for selling the parts of the aborted.
    Adrenochrome for the deletes included. Waiting till just before birth provides a bigger stack of green for the murderers who do not provide alternate options to the (in many cases scared )mothers.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I see we are on the same track, then. Yes, from all I have heard and read, children with Down's Syndrome are lovely to raise, and their lovingness makes the challenge much lower. I simply used that as an example, but there are others that are less appealing to deal with. Still: all humans IMO do have a right to an opinion about abortion. :-)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree with you my friend. Personally , I have had experience with many who have Downs Syndrome.
    My BW nannied for a boy with Downs from 1yr old to 8 . He is an absolute Joy. That has been my experience with everyone of those loving humans that I have met. Now if a parent was considering aborting a leftist , I could understand the termination.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Tavolino 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Don't forget "The Voice of Reason" and "Return to the Primitive." Both have many great essays. Then you can read "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology," and Peikoff's "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." That should keep you busy and you might enjoy the nonfiction essays and their relevance over the novels.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ gharkness 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I was actually referring to whether a man had the right to an opinion about abortion -or not - because he doesn't "own" a uterus. I believe he does, especially when it comes to HIS wife or partner and/or HIS child, but also in general. He is a human being capable of understanding the issues. He is (or can be) involved in the creation of a human being, and as such is fully able to understand and have an opinion about abortion.

    But to your comment - one could decide to abort an IVF pregnancy if the baby has an abnormality that the parents cannot deal with. For example: Down's syndrome. Some people would voluntarily choose to end a Down's Syndrome pregnancy, even if it were achieved by IVF.

    While I am very much against abortion, that wasn't actually what I was arguing, but whether any man had a right to have an opinion about abortion. He does.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CaptainKirk 2 years, 5 months ago
    Not enough of her books. And I don't know her opinions on such things.

    BUT the abortion issue is complicated as I posted elsewhere. Until we prosecute EVERY miscarriage as manslaughter, we are NOT on solid ground illegalizing it. Nature does NOT have a 100% success rate after conception. So, IMHO, that can NEVER be the line in the sand.

    On the other hand, once the baby is truly viable outside the womb, we have issues. And my personal favorite is/was brainwave activity that we can easily confirm means we have an individual. (But I am ALL About Arguing out where I will learn and move. It took me 30yrs to get to that point).
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Dobrien 2 years, 5 months ago
    I read Atlas Shrugged twice and Fountainhead once. I tried to start We the living and found it pretty depressing and thought I know where this is going (not good) so I didn’t finish it.
    Regarding Big businesses my take is that with lobbying and large cash donations from big business , regulations are used as a weapons to be used to stifle competition and hurt small business ability to exist. For a few decades at least the US has become fascist. Big business partnering with the Con-gress has enabled the
    ceo’s To make absolute fortunes on the back of the laborers. Many CEOs had nothing to do with starting the co.s that they run and now more than ever they partner with Government to the detriment of the citizens. It’s often a good old boy network attempting to rip off the shareholders and exploit the work force. I think all here respect any whale who built a business and thrived. Regarding the abortion issue ,I was surprised that Ayn Rand did not put a bit more responsibility to the pregnancy on the copulaters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I like your expression of "varied rational conclusions" based on "varied experiences". I've been caught on fire as a kid, been shot at/rocketed/mortared as a combat soldier in Vietnam, I killed many in self protection and in mass with big guns (8" and 175mm), was spit at coming home, my home was burglarized taking over $100K, and recently I got hit from behind at a stop light in my brand new truck that I hadn't even put gas in yet (cellphone "accident"). Those "experiences" definitely had an impact on my rational conclusions. I learned from them. And now my latest experiences I am seeing from my government actions are forming some more opinions, perhaps not as rational as my other ones. It's overwhelming, but also fortunate that I'm too old do do much about any of it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That's kind of why I asked the question. I see lots of Conservatism, but little Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by dansail 2 years, 5 months ago
    Yes, I read Rand's works and agree with her philosophy. Unfortunately, it seems this forum has drifted away from Rand's philosophy and closer to Conservatism than Objectivism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 2 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'd be more inclined to say, rather than "Rand was wrong on a few things", that "Ayn Rand had a differing opinion on a few things." Even between you and I, I'm sure we have a few different opinions even though we probably pretty much agree exactly or in varying degrees on most subjects. Different opinions too can be of varying degrees rather than being only the opposite. Anyway, that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo