Ayn Rand, Abortion, and Planned Parenthood.
Kevin Williamson of National Review did a follow-up to his piece which I posted here yesterday.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...
In this current piece, again on the Planned Parenthood atrocity (my word), he takes a shot at Planned Parenthhood apologists by referencing Rand
"Why not have a Fast Freddy’s Fetal Livers Emporium and Bait Shop in every town large enough to merit a Dairy Queen? If you are having some difficulty answering that question, perhaps you should, as some famous abortion-rights advocate once put it, check your premises."
Some people have taken this line to also be an implication of Rand.
Me, I'm not sure, there's a few things I disagree with Rand on, abortion being one of them.
But, what is Rand's view on abortion?
Here is a link the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...
I think the most relevant portion is this.
"A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."
In Rand's day, that's what abortion was.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I doubt very much that organ tissue can be harvested from a first trimester embryo.
I speculate that Planned Parenthood was harvesting exclusively from late term and even partial-birth abortions.
What Rand would say about this is also speculative, although we can infer from her words "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy..."
So, Objectivists, what say you?
Disclosure, my personal opinions on abortion - the human animal is a biological machine, as such it has core programming (instinctual drives). Maternal instincts are some of the most powerful any animal possesses, even stronger than Self-preservation or Species-reproduction. As such, I believe that when a woman has an abortion, regardless of the trimester, her maternal instinct kicks in at some level - automatic, unstoppable, irrevocable, unaffected by popular opinion of what abortion is supposed to be. As such, I believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she is doing deep and permanent psychological damage to herself. The existence of groups such as Silent No More lead me to suspect that my opinion is correct. What is the percentage of women who are psychologically damaged by an abortion? Who knows, and with today's Lysenko "scientists" I doubt there will be any unbiased research done. Regardless, until women who are considering an abortion first get counselling on the (what I believe) strong probability of psychological damage from the procedure, I can not be anything but against it.
This disclosure is also open for debate on this thread.
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/...
In this current piece, again on the Planned Parenthood atrocity (my word), he takes a shot at Planned Parenthhood apologists by referencing Rand
"Why not have a Fast Freddy’s Fetal Livers Emporium and Bait Shop in every town large enough to merit a Dairy Queen? If you are having some difficulty answering that question, perhaps you should, as some famous abortion-rights advocate once put it, check your premises."
Some people have taken this line to also be an implication of Rand.
Me, I'm not sure, there's a few things I disagree with Rand on, abortion being one of them.
But, what is Rand's view on abortion?
Here is a link the entry in the Ayn Rand Lexicon.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo...
I think the most relevant portion is this.
"A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months."
In Rand's day, that's what abortion was.
Now, I'm no doctor, but I doubt very much that organ tissue can be harvested from a first trimester embryo.
I speculate that Planned Parenthood was harvesting exclusively from late term and even partial-birth abortions.
What Rand would say about this is also speculative, although we can infer from her words "One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy..."
So, Objectivists, what say you?
Disclosure, my personal opinions on abortion - the human animal is a biological machine, as such it has core programming (instinctual drives). Maternal instincts are some of the most powerful any animal possesses, even stronger than Self-preservation or Species-reproduction. As such, I believe that when a woman has an abortion, regardless of the trimester, her maternal instinct kicks in at some level - automatic, unstoppable, irrevocable, unaffected by popular opinion of what abortion is supposed to be. As such, I believe that when a woman gets an abortion, she is doing deep and permanent psychological damage to herself. The existence of groups such as Silent No More lead me to suspect that my opinion is correct. What is the percentage of women who are psychologically damaged by an abortion? Who knows, and with today's Lysenko "scientists" I doubt there will be any unbiased research done. Regardless, until women who are considering an abortion first get counselling on the (what I believe) strong probability of psychological damage from the procedure, I can not be anything but against it.
This disclosure is also open for debate on this thread.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 9.
Rand had a statement about rights, that had something to do with they were not an imposition on others to implement. We are all letting ourselves get pulled into the emotions of a human baby's existence and what some supernatural god might intend for us, instead of the rights of a human at a philosophical level. We must place our thoughts on this subject at the same level by realizing the effects of any regulation, rules, and laws imposed by this type of argument on the rest of the philosophy and of individual freedom and rights.
We must move this argument out of the realm of what's right and good and nice, back into the realm of what do we know with maybe a list of what we don't know yet and need or would like to know more about. But certainly out of the realm of beliefs based on what we think we know of what a god wants of us.
We are for the most part Objectivist on this site and state that there can be no contradictions, and if it appears that you've found one, you need to check your premises. All of this discussion centers on a pregnancy restricting the rights of a living human to direct their own activities, in favor of the rights of another potential human. If that is so, then the pregnant human is in a different class of humans with less rights than those of others. That can't be.
We "want" to define life as an egg when it pertains to something convenient, or emotionally appealing, like saving the eagles.
BUT we do not want the same definition to apply to people because we all love the thought of abortion and that the woman should have the right to rip something out of her body if she chooses and we conveniently do not call that life.
The point I am making is that there is no consistency at all, either life begins at conception or it does not.
Or does life begin prior to conception such as a bird egg but not a human. Which is it? You cannot have it both ways and still claim A=A
Either the egg of a bird is of the same value as a human or visa versa, and both deserve protection under the law, or neither, since the egg is not life therefore should not be protected at all.
2) I share common views with Ms. Rand on >> 90% of her points, but do not consider myself an Objectivist. The life question we are discussing on this thread is the first or second most serious disagreement I have with Ms. Rand.
3) In the cases I disagree with Ms. Rand, it is on her definitions. Her conclusions are consistent with her definitions, but in a couple of cases, she has chosen definitions that are not standard. In those cases, I have chosen to reject her premises, and consequently do not consider myself an Objectivist.
4) Although I consider myself a non-Objectivist, I find my views and values more often reflected here than any other similar venue, and thus I return value for value in an effort to live a non-contradictory life.
5) When someone lives in a way that I consider contradictory, I will point it out, but not force it upon them. If one chooses to live a contradiction, then that contradiction will be its own punishment. If one chooses to live a life of non-contradiction, as I presume everyone in the Gulch does, then I am glad you are on the right path.
6) Specifically with regard to this post, as a tissue engineer, the definition of life is a critical one. When I grow part of (or eventually all of) an organ from one's own adult stem cells, the product that I have created will not have sentience, yet it must be alive when I implant it back into one of my patients. These patients value the value that I and my colleagues have created. To you, it may be an unviable tissue mass, but to me and my patients, it is the opportunity for a significantly improved quality of life. Your (and Ms. Rand's) definition of life cheapens the value of what I do, and consequently, I must defend my definition. In addition to the questionable morality, what was in the Planned Parenthood video has the potential to seriously lower the value on what I do. Less than or equal to $100 for a liver is a lot less than I will demand for my services! When I and others have to follow reasonable rules set by a society regarding the way that I conduct my tissue engineering, and then someone else gets to flaunt those rules and completely undercut my sales point, then you can be damned sure that I will be upset!
I was referring to moocher skanks. Wasn't that obvious?
If you want to be a plain old skank, fine. Just make sure you and any sex partner pays for the contraception.
Also telling PP to go to hell with their assembly line "war on babies" abortions would be appreciated but not demanded by Libertarian me.
Come more to the point next time. I may have something on my mind. Like my yard on a hot day.
To summarize the whole reason why many have taken offense at the recent Planned Parenthood video, one should recall the opening line of "For a Few Dollars More", the best of the Clint Eastwood spaghetti Westerns. "Where life had no value, death, sometimes, had its price." In this case, life had so little value that even the price on something that is dead had a small value.
When the relationship between the mother and fetus does actually bring harm to the mother, it becomes parasitic, and the morality changes accordingly.
I said if the Law in the USA deems the egg of an eagle something to be preserved then the "eggs" of humans also should receive at least the same protection under the law.
The quantity or rarity of a species is not relevant.
What would the free market have done in the place of the statist solution?
Wait, I get it now. You don't really agree with humans interacting in a free market in a value for value interchange do you?
It's my memory that the two women I had my experience with were that both counseled prior to the procedure and given references to follow up services after the procedure. But both went through private clinics. I suppose that had either been on their own or in an oppositional environment, their experiences would have been much worse.
I do wonder though, why we don't hear of such law suits happening.
So A does not Equal A then.
Human egg and sperm are not protected even though they support life (not = life).
Why? Because one is in danger of extinction (or was when the law was drafted). The other is far more in danger of extincting.
The guilt only adds to the trauma for some.
Load more comments...