Ayn Rand, Abortion, and Planned Parenthood.

Posted by Eudaimonia 9 years, 9 months ago to Politics
362 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

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.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 8.
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is precisely why I should not be a mother!

    I do not argue that most people consider children to be parasites (my parents loved children and would have liked a huge family), but I think of Alien whenever I consider an embryo, living inside me, sucking out my life. Blechch! And when they are born - they they ruin your life for the next couple of decades...until you can get rid of them.

    But this admittedly extreme view does give me a good perspective from which to respond when people say things like, "all women want children". Uh...over here!...No, I don't.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To be brutally honest, I don't really care when life begins. Life is not fair, humans are equal in relation to their rights at birth, not before birth and not for any outcome. Nature is a cold, cruel bitch. Some live, some die, and some just exist. A=A, and existence exists.

    What I really care about is individual rights and freedom of humans. AR said something about rights, on the order of rights do not place an imposition on others to implement them.

    I also care that no laws get passed that effect the lives of existing humans in any way, shape, or form. I care that a lot (nearly all) of existing laws get repealed or cancelled. And I really care that the government 'Keep It's Damn Laws Off Human Bodies' and human, free market interactions.

    And that if you wish for more laws that further restrict the freedom of any human in any way, that you go somewhere where you can do that, but not where I'm at. That is statism, pure and simple.

    Let the birds fend for themselves or for people that care about them to spend their own money and time raising them, and if dead fetal tissue can be utilized for research that stands the chance of improving the future lives of humanity I'm all for it. If you don't do that, it get's thrown into a furnace somewhere.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I will not say that children are parasites.
    But I do ask the waiter not to seat me near any wailing infants.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because you're advocating for government to pass a law protecting human fertilized eggs at least on a level with eagle fertilized eggs. That 's a growth in statism over the present level. To not get that i'd need to see that you advocate to repeal the eagle egg law and stop the rest of the anti-life nonsense.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think I just read within the last two weeks that world population has hit 7.5 billion and the max is now projected to reach 10 Billion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I give you several points, but the little thumb will not cooperate...so you just get the one point for, "Other people's opinions are noise."

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    To me, a key point is that as a country becomes more affluent, and child mortality drops, no government intervention is needed for the birth rate to decrease. Singapore is down below 2 births per couple.

    It seems that the instinct to reproduce takes into account the survival rate and population pressure.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The problem with separating abortion from the use of rejected tissues is that selling the aborted tissues has long been a part of the business model for Planned Parenthood clinics. Many of us in the tissue engineering field have known this for years. The woman's right to choose is dependent on the economics of the abortion provider's abiilty to stay in business. Their business model includes not only the selling of aborted tissues to some of my less scrupulous competitors, but more importantly, my sanction (via my taxes) to pay for some of the abortions. If both cronyist aspects get removed, then abortions would become "rare" as President Clinton at least said he hoped would happen.

    As for "perceived abuses", I know of two non-USA competitors who are buying aborted fetuses for their tissue engineering development. If I were to do so, even if I thought it morally acceptable, I would quickly be in jail. Moreover, if I were to use aborted fetuses, it would have cut > 1 year of development time and more than $100 K. That is money I have to consider as part of my capital investment when doing ROI calculations that my foreign competition doesn't.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I do not call myself a Randist or Objectivist in this company, because I do not agree with many of the quotes or policies that are cited as being part of those philosophies. I am on this blog because I am an independent and rational person who has read Ayn Rand and who is wallowing in interacting with other people who have fundamentally the same perspectives as I do.

    So, I am not an "-ist", but this blog is valuable to me.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Actually, as part of the consensus of ethics, a woman may not be compensated for the use of embryonic cells or organs. This is to prevent her making a decision based on economics. She is also not supposed to be informed of the possibility of using the fetal cells/organs for research or medical procedures so that she does not make the decision in light of compassion for someone else.

    I do not actually agree with these policies, but I can see that they are currently necessary in order to totally divorce the decision from taint of medical scandal.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting point. Thank you for bringing it up.

    My answer is that if the human race were in danger of extinction, any viable blastocyst would be worth a whole lot more than 10K!

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ProfChuck 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The most broadly accepted definition of death is the cessation of detectable brain activity. It would seem reasonable to assume that a similar definition of the beginning of life could be drawn. Electroencephalographic measurements indicate that distinctly human cerebral activity is detectable late in the first trimester. If the cessation of brain activity indicates the end of life is it not reasonable to suggest that the appearance of brain activity indicates its beginning?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I apologize if I have offended you by seeming to attack you instead of your arguments. I will say that I am baffled...I say BAFFLED! to see many of the people on this list wanting to restrict the prerogative of a woman to make a decision that will possibly alter her entire life.

    In terms of counseling, I have no problem at all with helping people understand the options they have and the repercussions of those options. The medical profession can do better there! Bit I do NOT want this to come across as, "We know that if you decide to have an abortion you will regret this for the rest of your life. Now - do you really want to go through with this?"

    A woman certainly has the right to this decision, at least to whatever degree is not defined as murder. If you do not agree with this, I shall cease to be baffled and become completely FLABBERGASTED!

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Seems easy enough to separate them to me. One is a freedom of a woman to decide what to do with her body and resources. The second is what can be done with the waste products. Quite easy, see?

    It is convenient to combine perceived abuses, particularly one with so much media power, to support but a single argument that is lost on its own.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Let's say you need a medical procedure after that auto accident, and that requires my skill as a tissue engineer, what would you consider the scaffold I generate along with the adult stem cells that I harvest from you and then genetically reprogram to regenerate a body part custom made for you? Would that be undeniably valuable to you? By your definition, that would not be called life. I will agree that the tissue I am engineering has no rights, but if it were not alive, then it would not help you when my surgical colleagues implanted my customized body part inside you.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a question that is interesting to me, but I think it is a different question than is the root of this thread (not that this branch isn't worthwhile).

    When we have Uterine Replicators that can carry a blastocyst from conception to birth, then the rule of thumb of 'viable outside the human body' breaks down. Right now, while that rule is (I feel) ultimately doomed, it is the best we can do.

    I would suggest that the binary of sentient/non-sentient may be too gross a granularity. I think that there may be subdivisions, with various levels of action appropriate at each point.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Regarding the bicycle analogy, pushing the Undo button may be possible, but it might not as well. One can prepare for the bicycle accident by getting insurance and perhaps can undo the harm by getting the medical procedure, but not all actions have reversible consequences. Abortion is one such case.

    Look at your bicycle example from the following perspective. Let's say you need that medical procedure, and that requires my skill as a tissue engineer (actually my current field), what would you consider the scaffold I generate along with the adult stem cells that I harvest from you and then genetically reprogram to regenerate a body part custom made for you? Would that be undeniably valuable to you? I think so. To others in this forum, it would be worse than a lump of protoplasm to them; it would likely get rejected because your immunities are different than theirs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    From what I have read, there are a handful of emotions that are innate: fear of spiders, fear of falling, a few others. Most of the rest of the emotions seem to be learned, and anthropology texts come up with some really strange variations in the human species.

    I do think that emotions, if properly trained, can serve as a 'short cut' to laborious reasoning. Such 'intuitions' can be valuable - you may not know 'why' that patch of woods look spooky, but you quietly creep backwards and thus avoid the sabretooth.

    As a current example, I am obviously responding with a different set of emotions to the situations posed concerning, pregnancy, abortion and/or sale of the tissue and organs from aborted embryos. This thread is full of a spectrum of emotions, not a reflection of innate emotions.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    They are not entirely separate acts. Abortion doesn't happen unless sex happens first; it would be unnecessary. One's past decisions will affect one's current decisions, which will in turn affect one's future decisions. This is a lesson you might learn from Star Trek: The Next Generation.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oeLrq...
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that where I disagree with your argument is that I consider it valid to push the Undo button for an action. Yes, riding my bicycle without a helmet has consequences, but I have health insurance and am a cryonics subscriber to back up that choice. Hopefully, if I fall off and crack my skull, my health insurance will put me back together (let's hope my cryonics subscription is not needed!).

    I have made a choice: riding without a helmet. If this should turn out to be a poor choice, then I can try to Undo the harm via a medical procedure.

    To me, this differs from an early term abortion only in that I am undeniably valuable to me but a lump of protoplasm is of no value to me. So that makes an abortion a much easier choice - I am only getting rid of something that I do not want.

    Jan
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It is interesting that you view children as parasites. I hope your parents did not view you as such. I had argued earlier tonight that the fetus/mother relationship is commensalistic. If one knows going in that having a child/parasite is a potential consequence initiated through the consensual volition of two consenting adults, then perhaps those two consenting adults are acting irrationally. While sex is fun, one must realize that, everywhere throughout the animal kingdom, one of the objectives of sex is procreation. If children are indeed purely parasitic, then our existence is a contradiction. I'm not ready to go down that path.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo