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 6.
The problem is that there is a continuum of existence for that individual collection of genetic material through adulthood. Even after birth it does not qualify as an independent rational member of society until years of effort have been placed into protecting and nurturing it.
There are two points in this development which stand out. The first is when the organism can continue to survive, with assistance, if taken from the mother's womb, although that process can be significantly invasive as to the mother's rights. The second is at birth when someone else can take over care without imposing a medical procedure on the mother.
I'm not sure when it's a meaningful sentient life.
You are correct in saying that Ms. Rand would not have defined life in the way that I did, or in the way that the rest of society does. It is precisely this reason as to why I have described Ms. Rand as "clever". In both her definitions of atheism and life, she has constructed her own definitions in such a way that are self-consistent. While the question of atheism is inherently unknowable, the question of life is not. Life has the characteristics that I described earlier. Sentience is not a requirement for a life, although adaptation to surroundings is.
What moral hierarchy? All human beings have equal rights and responsibilities. included is the right to do whatever he/she wants with his/her body.
A fetus is not a necessary consequence of sex; a woman is not morally required to keep it.
I agree - and implied such - that those who do not sufficiently think through their decision as well as their moral principles are more likely to be scared.
Tissue engineering def.s are not philosophical; she would not have defined life your way if there was such a thing.
Rush Limbaugh has correctly stated that liberalism is a series of easy choices. If society makes such choices even easier by subsidizing them, then that requires my unwilling participation. If people choose abortions and pay the full amount, I will tell them politely that I disagree with their decision, but at least I have not had to provide sanction to it.
The "scandals" could be prevented.
"Alive" here means nothing.
One is not morally obliged to keep the fetus - if that is where you are going.
In addition, what makes that unique combination more precious than all the ones we decided not to allow to proceed (e.g. condoms, etc).
Unique, yes. A meaningful, sentient life to be taken, no.
Use of the fetal tissue and taxes to pay for them are unrelated to whether abortion is morally inappropriate and should be illegal.
A completely separate issue is whether there should be legislation limiting the use of fetal tissue. Personally, if productive use can be found for this otherwise waste material, I have no issue with its use. This is a separate argument.
I understood you the first time, but the combination of these two issues is like considering a theif's use of stolen items in the decision regarding the legality of theft. Irrelevant!
If, in my case above, we decide that the right of an individual to make choices has primacy over personal responsibility for the life of another human, then abortion on demand, at any stage of fetal development has to be the Objectivist position. Ayn Rand herself obviously would disagree with this absolutist position, since she drew the line at the first trimester.
My point in this issue of abortion is that it isn't as simple as drawing arbitrary lines so we can safely ignore the moral dilemma. If the Objectivist view is that moral contradictions can't exist, then Hobbes was right, at least for Objectivists: "Life is brutal, nasty, and short."
Load more comments...