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 11.
And do you really think that you need to tell a man, "Having a vasectomy can alter your behavior or self image." ? I think that is pretty apparent to the prospective patient, even if he has not done any research on the statistics. Likewise, telling a woman, "Having an abortion might possibly have some psychological side effects." is probably unnecessary. This is not esoteric knowledge. (The women I have talked to who have had them did not experience this, but others probably did - that is part of the decision they chose to make, and not a subtle part, either.)
I think this falls into the category of, "Protecting the little stupid people from the repercussions of their own decisions by requiring them to jump through hoops in order to get society's approval." which is a lawmaking tendency that is strong in liberals. A woman should not need anyone's approval to get a legal abortion (per whatever the definition and limits of 'legal' are at the time).
Jan
1) In my own dealings with women who have had abortions I have noticed a pattern of "emotional loss"
2) I have noticed that abortion survivor support groups have formed for women claiming similar distress.
3) Abortion science is politicized (Lysenkoized) and therefore suspect.
4) Any study done on the subject is therefore also suspect.
5) Having to choose between suspect expert evidence and experiential evidence, I have chosen experiential.
6) Expert evidence says that women claiming distress are minimal in number or politically motivated and therefore their claim can be ignored.
7) Doctors performing any procedure do so out of expert evidence.
8) Not informing a patient of a possible side-effect for any medical procedure has a legal term: malpractice.
I am not arguing for or against abortion.
I am arguing against what I believe to be malpractice.
You are now free to ignore and flame at will.
After our experience, I said something similar to my mom. Her answer took me by surprise. She said, "You were supposed to be born on the 4th of July, but I was in labor for 3 days -- You were always a stubborn kid."(No cesareans in those days.)
If it is an acceptable action to take, why should we make it more unpleasant that it already is?
If by "the pill" you means something like RU486, they most definitely care about it.
This business of saying one must live with one's own decisions is clearly true, but is says nothing about the following actions. I may choose to break something I can easily replace. Am I then compelled to live without that thing forever? Clearly not. This statement is similarly irrelevant to limiting abortion.
As separate from logical argument as this may be, I wonder what the correlation between religious beliefs and positions on abortion are, even among us. I think the data would be telling and identify an motive to back into the conclusion with logic.
My threshold for using governmental force to ban something has to be a lot higher than violent media increases aggression. Your aggression has to rise to the level of initiating the use of force before we can do that.
in the mother's womb, it is not "independent" until removed with high likelihood or survival. The fetus is only a potential being until then, not an actual one. This is a key distinction because of the concept of rights that you and others here choose not to deal with.
There is nothing innate in his subconscious; e.g. a child does not react differently to a dog or a wolf. Once he values and trusts dogs, his fear goes away.
In your last paragraph, you show that fear comes from knowing the danger in advance, not from some innate sense.
Not sure how you and I differ on the emotional trauma, but sounds like we do agree to some definition of the beginning of life, and on the concept of a child's individual rights. It seems we may differ on the transition from the mother's responsibility and rights to the child's rights. If you agree with this conceptual transition (which is very cool), then the next would be a discussion of the technical details of the transition.
I have a problem with simply using brain activity as a defining moment this does not indicate conscienceless, or any kind of higher thinking; therefore, it is not different than using the heartbeat, which happens even earlier in the development of the fetus. I can't see assigning the beginning of human life to something present in all animals, and even animal fetuses.
Sometimes I'm not so diplomatic, and I regret it when speaking with people who are, or when I inspire reasonable people to inflammation.
I do, however, think it should be mandatory that those who would perform a medical procedure disclose the risk.
That's why we have all those fast talking voice actors at the end of each commercial for each new pharm-wonder-drug... could cause spontaneous-combustion, permanent blindness, and zombification...
I am not arguing on the morality/immorality of abortion per se.
I am arguing over the morality/immorality of a medical procedure performed without full disclosure.
Let me frame it this way.
Suppose that you had to have surgery, either elective or critical, and that the procedure needed was presented to you as safe and routine.
Later, you develop a side-effect which everyone knew about but didn't bother to tell you because it wasn't politic.
How much would you sue for?
A complete, independent human being? How independent? Preemies at a very early stage of development can survive with the assistance of medical equipment, but do they qualify as human, by your definition?
What I'm trying to establish is that the conditions that support abortion are subjective and volatile. Too often we throw out our own subjective terminology, making the mistake of thinking others have the same understanding we do, when in fact their understanding of the same language is radically different. It's the variance in understanding that makes decisions about laws regarding this subject difficult.
When the Planned Parenthood story came out, I called my mom and thanked her for not aborting me and having me sold off for parts.
For me, it was a typical "ha-ha, only serious" joke.
I'm sure you understand.
Please police your own threads, thank you.
"but they are auto responses to one's values, not the drivers; not inputs to logic."
You have that precisely backwards, which is what I was trying to point out. Values are derived from logic and experience because they are a comparison. Emotions are innate and visceral. You do not choose to become afraid of getting caught stealing. You may be able (with some training) to control that fear or channel it, but the fear is not a product of one's values - it exists preliminary to them!
Ask a combat veteran what the purpose of basic training is and how it compares with real battle. They will tell you that the purpose of their training is to help them deal with the eventuality of the emotions that will assault them the first time they are in the field for real. But every single one will say that despite all of that, the reality of the moment was such that despite those preparations they still encountered system shock. All will tell you that they were not prepared for that first time they were forced to take a life - even in self-defense - or the resulting emotions of such an event.
A mother has to have a right to her own body - a right given by her nature, not govt. or anyone else. An assault on her that results in the death of a fetus is an assault on her property - that's why it is a crime. But govt. does not have a right otherwise dictate what she can do with her body. I see no moral dilemma.
When they felt comfortable enough in conversation to discuss it, each to a person claimed they felt an emotional sense of loss over it, some every day.
They did not claim regret: regret is partially reason based, each knew that they had made what was for them the correct decision.
My points are these:
1) Science is corrupted by politics. The only evidence I can trust in an area of science which politics has Lysenkoized is evidence which I have seen first-hand. My first-hand evidence has led me to my conclusion about probable side-effects to the abortion procedure.
2) I am not arguing on the morality/immorality of abortion per se. I am arguing over the morality/immorality of a medical procedure performed without full disclosure.
Let me frame it this way.
Suppose that you had to have surgery, either elective or critical, and that the procedure needed was presented to you as safe and routine.
Later, you develop a side-effect which everyone knew about but didn't bother to tell you because it wasn't politic.
How much would you sue for?
It's a little like libertarians not understanding Rand's morality, thus making many errors in politics.
You clearly have not grasped fundamentals.
Load more comments...