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 10.
Fetus grows to a human life, therefore should also be protected from harm by humans.
It is a classic case of contradiction of law. Animal egg is life and protected, Human is not life and not protected.
I thought what I wrote above was pretty clear...even placed the legal statutes.
I'll tell you what though, all these angry Gulchers have really helped me to clarify my point!
You are talking about guilt.
I am talking about trauma.
There's actually been a lot of discussion recently about that.
The decision the Admins made was that Producer membership requires advocacy of AR/AS/OBJ and that regular membership is open to all (until they become an obvious troll of course).
And the troll bar is set very, very high by the admins, sometimes very much to the chagrin of some of the members.
I would suggest that you look into and consider a producer membership. http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f...
It's really not that expensive, the fee is meant as a minimal "money where your mouth is" commitment.
One of the perks is access to the very underused "Gulch Lounge" category.
If your concern is having more Objectivist themed conversation with more Objectivist minded people, that would be the category to hang out in.
Although, as you can see from this thread, even we producers knock heads from time to time.
BTW, don't take my sarcasm too personally.
People here know me for my infamous "Two Strike Policy"
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
When I'm serious, I start calling strikes.
I hope to see you on the producer side.
Rick (Eudaimonia)
Jan
2 - there is no emotion there.
3 - If you value your life and it is threatened, fear is expected. You're right - that emotion is not controlled because it is an automatic reaction.
I just thought this blog was for Obj.ists or those aspiring to be so.
http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
No.
What I advocated is that the doctor performing the procedure inform the patient of all possible side-effects to the patient.
As I responded to jlc:
Start quote ---
If it is possible that you are getting hung up on the word "counselling", let me clarify.
I do not mean "counselling" as you see a psych health professional.
Rather "counselling" in it's sense of "advise" or "warning".
Meaning that the doctor should say, "Just so you know, x percent of women have experienced y degree of z side-effect."
And that's it.
I expect nothing less from any other medical professional.
And if I get less, it is fraud and malpractice.
End Quote ---
Requiring abortion customers to see what the fetus looks like is a bullshit scare tactic religious people want to use because they've lost the simple secular argument. It is just like vegans wanting meat eaters to watch their cow die and be slaughtered before they eat steak, and it is right out of an Orwell novel.
In my opinion, the maternal instinct does not give a damn what society's popular opinion (strongly pro-abortion, mind you) happens to be.
Your opinion will no doubt be different from mine.
I do not mean "councelling" as you see a psych health professional.
Rather "councelling" in it's sense of "advise" or "warning".
Meaning that the doctor should say, "Just so you know, x percent of women have experinced y degree of z side-effect."
And that's it.
I expect nothing less from any other medical professional.
And if I get less, it is fraud and malpractice.
Either way, if you assumed the worst the or not, how little you think of me is noted.
Sure, they should be fully informed - and should take all precautions....
Or did you misunderstand my argument?
With respect to the child's reaction to the dog vs the wolf, what you are describing is not the origin of the emotion, but the conditioned response to the emotion.
"In your last paragraph, you show that fear comes from knowing the danger in advance, not from some innate sense."
Again, please consult a medical psychology journal. One can anticipate a danger, but until the actual situation presents itself, one can not predict with any degree of certainty the actual response that will take place. For combat training, what they are trying to do is prepare the soldier to deal with the emotions generated productively. They can not and do not control the emotion itself.
Neither holds water. The government has not asserted that the eggs are life.
Capturing and sterilizing an endangered species would also land you in jail, but not so for a vasectomy or "tube tying" in a human. Does this also mean animals are more important than humans? No.
No one thinks abortion is a positive thing to be encouraged. Perhaps there is a real secular argument against it (the above is not one). However, I question how many people have not made a decision on abortion and subsequently seek secular arguments against it.
We have: murder - lot of work to do here.
We have:the woman will feel bad after - Really, Gulchers want to make something illegal because the decision maker will regret the decision?
We have - You have to live with your bad decisions. Right. You had sex, too bad so sad. Cut it out. You bought a pretty, but unreliable car. You have to keep it until we agree you've suffered adequately.
We have: allowing abortion encourages irresponsible social behaviors - Clearly not if people feel so bad after them.
The only reasonable secular argument against abortion is the rights of the child, and that depends on the child being an individual human when the abortion occurs. Since the cost and burden is on the mother who would seek an abortion, the burden of proof is on those seeking to limit her freedoms. Demonstrate the fetus is a human in any manner also relevant in demonstrating humans are different than animals. Simple, and I bet you can't.
I'm glad to see you think so little of me.
Load more comments...