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 2.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by jtrikakis 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those "cells" are not random things that can be developed into something other than making a human being. I heard a cool analogy recently, a guy told another guy to shoot any bull dogs he sees. The guy saw a poodle and shot it. Then asked why, the guy said, you never know what its going turn into.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    History would prove you right. I kind of supposed the concept of not turning one's religious opinion into legislation would prompt a response. It will probably happen, but few here would suggest it is appropriate.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You would be the only person who thinks this is verbal manipulation.

    Life is Life PERIOD.
    Non-Life is NON-life PERIOD
    A=A

    If one is defined as life at a certain point so also is all other life or non-life. Period.

    Although I was using the term LEGAL Protection.

    If Egg = Legal Protection for Animal
    Human is an animal
    Human Egg/Fetus = Legal Protection.

    There is NO manipulation, this is simple A=A. Perhaps this concept is to simple for some. Or perhaps not "convenient."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by woodlema 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I have not altered any definition, it is those who "think" that they can alter based on their personal preferences at the time.

    Quantity of a species does not change the definition, it only changes the justification of the action.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by woodlema 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No. You just do not like REALITY!!!

    Maybe you should just use a "less crunchy method" to formulate your responses to me.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Everything the Supreme Court says is now a "moving target". Roe v Wade protects the right to all abortion, not just the first trimester.

    Whatever may happen after an abortion in terms of viability does not negate the woman's right to abortion.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    What you do for a living has nothing to do with this nonsensical sophistry claiming "abortion is a form of blanking out" in the name of Ayn Rand's own metaphysics. You are dramatically sloganeering with Ayn Rand terminology with no idea what you are talking about.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I bet the costs are out of sight. Just look how the rest of us subsidize the education of children not our own for an idea of subsidized baby production. Subsidize something and you get more of it. Just what a world of 7 billion needs: more children.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am not disagreeing with you on this one, but if I were to create my own definitions, you and everyone else would immediately say, "Who the heck are you to define terms in a way that is different from everyone else?"
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Esceptico 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I am sure they do. This is not a subject to which I have directed much thought because it does not impact me. It certainly is an interesting subject, deciding when "rights" attach. One or more of our Objectivist betters should address this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No, it's not good. His claims that Ayn Rand's position denies that "existence exists" are preposterous. Choosing to not carry on a pregnancy for months and not have a child does not refuse or deny the consequences of one's actions or "A is A". Having a child is one possible outcome that depends on a number of factors, none of which anyone is obligated to provide.

    This is rationalistic sophistry intended to support such absurdities as demanding to "not mate in the first place if one does not want a pregnancy". It is an excuse for the thousand year old Catholic dogma that the only purpose of sex is to procreate and that sex for human pleasure alone is evil. This irrational, anti human dogma is all the more offensive cloaked in context dropping parroting of Ayn Rand's own principles.

    That kind of mentality and irrationality cannot possibly end up as anything but the equivalent of "calling your legislatures".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I suggest you check your premises, ewv. What you said is what the courts are supposed to do. Recent history has proven you factually incorrect.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand based her concepts and definitions on essentials, not the invalid concepts you regard as "standard".

    Nothing in Ayn Rand "cheapens" any science.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That has nothing to do with his comment on those who post here with no interest or effort in understanding Ayn Rand's ideas and who systematically contradict it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    This is a site for those who are attracted to Ayn Rand's philosophy. Theocratic execution of those who live without regard to religious injunctions about "life belonging to god" are savage. This is not the place to promote such barbarism.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No biology textbook stays that fetuses have "property rights".

    Laws associated with damage to a fetus are morally based on the mother's rights and choice to have a baby.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The courts try to determine how to apply a principle in unusual or new circumstances, not define the law, let alone define morality.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Doctors issuing warnings with no understanding of the cause of the danger and with misleading attributions is unethical. The cause of the emotional problems is the false beliefs about morality and abortion, not the procedure itself.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The weaker ones with a conflict over abortion have no idea why it is moral and have been manipulated into guilt.

    The warning required is: "If you adhere to religious pronouncements and don't understand what you are doing you will experience emotional problems. You are psychologically damaged."
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Your "logic" is verbal manipulation with no understanding of the meaning of the concepts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You wouldn't have a "problem", you would have an impossible contradiction.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    You are trying to undermine a "secular" "A is A" formulation that you do not understand through rationalistic sophistry.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo