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 14.
The seminal question is, when does life begin? If not at conception, when?
Just curious as to the logic behind your statement.
Many people, including the Supreme Court in Roe v Wade are guided by the viability argument -- that once the fetus could live outside the mother (note even a baby can't live independently of human effort) it becomes protected.
It was known at the time of the decision and continues to be true that its a moving target. Eventually at any point after fertilization technology will be able to bring it to term so we will have some interesting debates.
It's hard to make that case unless at least fertilization occurs.
Or are you just trying to equate abortion with birth control to minimize the moral aspect?
Life simply cannot begin at or anywhere near conception; that creates an untenable contradiction of rights.
2. An Obj.ist has to accept the morality of abortion - an issue of rights.
3. For those late-term abortion cases (which are fairly small in number): if the fetus would be breathing/alive upon removal, then one could claim it to be "human." But like Rand said, that is not where morality lies (on the extremes).
4. I don't have a problem with the use of fetus parts in research. But the mother of the fetus should have a say in that use and be compensated in some way (e.g. for hospital bills).
I've seen women on TV say they now regret an abortion. I know a woman who still mourns a miscarried child lost two decades ago.
I'm sure there are plenty of skanks who will say "Oops!" at a missed period and beeline to PP on our dollar like it's all about nothing.
The moral standard for Objectivist ethics is supposed to be "man's life." Hence one does not allow murder. But: that also means one should not allow any practice that desensitizes a person and makes him more likely to commit murder. And that is what abortion allows--and the later in the term, the stronger the effect.
If we do not allow harvesting an adult or a born child for parts, how can we allow that from an unborn child? The second practice, if society allows it, desensitizes the public so they might allow, even demand, the first. How long, then, before "You ought to be broken up for your organs, and maybe then you would be useful to the world" becomes a common insult? And how long after that before that becomes an allowable sentence of a court?
A few things to think about, in light of the Planned Parenthood revelations.
What this "doctor" from PP is doing is Nazi (if that can used as an adjective).
Has anybody here gotten through that video? I couldn't do it. I got about half way through it and had to shut it down. Try it. See what you think.
Load more comments...