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 7.
ALL abortions are an invasive medical procedure. This is a fact.
Other than abortions any invasive medical procedure MUST follow specific guidelines by law, which includes to the patient full complete disclosure of all possible side effects or risks.
Why is abortion not treated as ANY other medical procedure? Convenience and politics.
Since an abortion IS a medical procedure, and an invasive one at that and either local anesthesia or IV sedation is used, this eve further dictates that full disclosure of every possible risk should be clearly outlined to the patient as in any other medical procedure.
Roughly 47,000 women die every year FROM abortion complications. Another reason to enforce full disclosure and treat as any other invasive medical procedure.
I am not advocating for or against abortion here, simply pointing out some facts, that indicate that abortions SHOULD be treated live real medical procedures, not like a McDonalds drive through at some non-medical facility where the women can get REAL medical care.
Anything short of that IS malpractice.
Ms. Rand's definition of life is quite acceptable for determining rights (or lack thereof) for the unborn, but it is quite inadequate from a tissue engineering standpoint. Ms. Rand did not have to consider that, because tissue engineering did not exist in her lifetime. That is no longer the case. It is for just this reason that my students are required to take a bioethics class.
We have no disagreement regarding the last 2/3 of what you said. Ms. Rand's definitions and philosophy are quite self-consistent.
If an Eagle egg is alive and deserved protection under the law, then so must a human fetus be considered alive and receive protection under the law, else the law is inconsistent and needs to include human fetus.
If a human Fetus is NOT alive therefore deserves no protection under the law because it has not been born, i.e. exited the womb, then an Eagle egg must also be considered not alive because it has not hatched, and deserves no protection under the law.
See no avocation for one over the other, only bringing to light the massive inconsistency.
So far we have seen some justification to alter the definition of life based on risk of extinction, but that has no bearing on the root definitions in reality.
I am not advocating one way over another just spurring some thought.
The definition does not change, only the justification. So again, life begins when has nothing to do with how many of a species is in existence.
http://grants.nih.gov/stem_cells/regi...
I could develop my own stem cell line and apply for inclusion in the registry, but that is beyond the financial wherewithal of almost anyone who wouldn't suckle up to the State Science Institute for funding.
That has never been the question.
It matters that she is consistent within her philosophy. Her def. of life is well-developed, and no life by that def. is eliminated.
If you are talking about any existence, we eliminate many things every day; that is not a philosophical issue.
The analogy was not as you described it, but it is not worth further explanation.
I despised these decisions to deceive those women 'for their own good', and I agree that the patient should know everything that is available, in as reasonable a language as is possible, about their options and the ramifications of their choices.
And if a doctor fails to do this, then sue the bastard.
Jan, glad you got through the nuclear experience
I do not advocate the compulsory counselling of a woman considering an abortion (the misunderstanding here was my fault as I chose the incorrect word. I have been brushing up my Latin lately and the vocabulary word consilium [advice] is used a lot. I used it without considering its other, more compulsory, meaning)
I do not advocate any "moralistic advocacy" in the disclosure.
I only advocate the disclosure.
Let me give you an example of what I am talking about.
When in my late twenties and early thirties I suffered acute adult acne.
It was f'ing horrible.
I went to a dermatologist and we tried a few different treatments.
Nothing worked.
As a last resort he suggested a drug, but he warned me that it is essentially a "nuclear bomb" [his words].
The drug had a considerable side-effect list.
The doctor suggested that I look over the list.
I decided to undergo the treatment.
While under the treatment, I became dangerously depressed and suicidal.
This was not a listed side-effect of the drug, so I chalked it up to a really bad break up that I had currently went through, not even thinking that I don't get suicidal over break-ups.
I finished the treatment and it successfully did away with my adult acne.
Years later I saw a TV ad for a Class-Action Ambulance Chaser.
They were assembling a lawsuit for people who were prescribed the drug which that dermatologist prescribed for me.
The suit claimed that the drug induced suicidal depression.
I can vouch my experience, you bet your ass it did, at least in me.
I did not join the lawsuit for a few reasons:
1) I don't like that type of lawyer
2) The dermatologist said "nuclear bomb", that's a pretty stiff warning
3) The treatment worked
4) (and most importantly) The side-effect was not known at the time.
Now, if that dermatologist had known about that side-effect, and withheld that information from me because of a fealty to a personal political ideology...
I just might have tried to sue his f'ing ass off.
Jan
It is a trash/treasure case.
Ultimately, autologous stem cells are going to provide the most benefit in most cases, because of the immunological problems with embryonic stem cells. Correcting genetic errors will be an exception until we get better at modifying the genome.
Jan
Load more comments...