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 5.
If at any point you determine for any reason that the egg needs protected because it's potential for life, then the same passes to the human fetus.
Quantity of a speciies does not change what the definition of life is or should be.
If Egg of eagle is alive, so is embryo of human.
If Egg of Eagle is not alive neither is human.
If the fertilized bird egg is "alive, then so is the embryo of a human.
If the fertlized egg is not alive then neither is human.
A=A.
A=A.
I have also not in this thread discussed anything about big or small government.
I have also not endorsing any controls.
I have only been bringing to light significant inconsistencies.
Zenphamy please point out in this thread ANYPLACE I said to pass a law protecting anything.
I am pointing out that under the premise of A=A, you cannot have it both ways. I am pointing out that people use convenience to justify their view, and ignore that they often turn it into A<>A.
If you or anyone claims that the egg of an eagle needs saved for any reason other than it is life, then that definition also passes to all living creatures. A=A.
If the egg of an Eagle is not alive then no law should be there protecting it period, and then you are being consistent in that the human embryo is also not alive.
But NOPLACE in this thread did I state any anti abortion view, or any pro abortion view, not any bigger government or more control government, just pointing out major inconsistencies that need rectified so A=A.
I consider the assertion that abortion is murder by most people is laughable, when there are gobs of starving actual walking, functioning humans dieing every day. Unless the people arguing against it have exhausted their resources supporting these other people first, they are simply hypocrites.
Certainly the uniqueness concept has intellectual merit in evaluation, but it is a practical red herring.
The problem we seem to be centering in on is man's intervention, rather than nature's or god's, for some. But that's kind of the definition of man, to use, manipulate, and even modify nature for his benefit in living and his life. If your argument is that man's intervention in when or if to have a child is wrong, then man's intervention to save a preemie, to implant a pacemaker, to go into space, to correct a birth disfigurement with surgery, and etc are all wrong as well.
In that case, then men have no rights. They must submit to nature's or god's will. That's not Objectivism. That reasoning puts us back into the caves hunting on the savanna with our bare hands, and praying to the gods of nature for our survival.
Yes to the last Q, but irrelevant to the moral Q.
If you developed a complete philosophy that would be compatible with your def. of life, then it would have to be subjectivist in nature.
Jan
The 111 year old woman who was studied had all of her remaining lymphocytes of a single familial strain. This news should have received more attention than it did, as it is crucial to our understanding of aging.
Jan
Jan
And it's no more inconsistent than a cop getting away with killing an unarmed man while a citizen would go to prison. It's all anti-humanism and anti-rights.
Why?
You're not offended, so I'll unhide.
Your issue on this post is blatantly anti-abortion. You just need to go ahead and state it and fully accept that you're trying to get the state to act for you against those that don't believe as you. And further that doing so is the very definition of statism leading to more state control of humans by taking control of a woman's body.
That's one of my issues with conservatives that talk small government and less government interference out of one side of their mouths, while out of the other side trying to get bigger government and more interference. That, I maintain is an inconsistency.
fetus "thrashed around" during the procedure. If it
can thrash around and fight, I guess it must be a
separate entity. That does not mean that it is an
actually separate human being from the moment
of conception, however. I think that it should
make a difference whether it has brain waves
yet, or not.
Load more comments...