Godless Capitalist

Never mind my last comment; I found the separate thread on this issue: http://207.68.164.250/cgi-bin/linkrd?_lang...ew%3dgetnewpost

good answer; thanks

2) I'm not sure what your point is. The umbilical cord dividing line is not my suggestion; it came from the site I referenced. What do you mean by "come back a little earlier"? 3) Point taken; I have not seen that in Rand's work but other Objectivists have given the same explanation. I'd like more explanation, though. Why does bringing the child into existence create an obligation? I'm thinking especially of cases where a woman gets pregnant accidentally rather than choosing to have a child. Why can she just not abandon the child after it is born? Why does a child have "positive rights"?

Exactly. I would add that if you refuse to pay as a matter of principle, you will be thrown in jail and be unable to pursue your own interests. As a side note, it is not all that difficult to work "under the table" and avoid paying taxes. Should one feel morally obligated to do so to avoid supporting oppressive government, even if it means their choice of careers is restricted?

Wow; I'd really like to know what Binswanger actually said. "Voluntary slave" is an oxymoron for reasons already given.

So anyway back to the original question ... Did Rand ever give an explanation about why she thought homosexuality was immoral? I asked John Ridpath (Objectivist prof. at York U. in Canada) about this issue once and his answer was basically that it was wrong because it was against man's nature eg our biologically normal reproductive behavior. As an argument that homosexuality (if caused by genetic or hormonal factor, as I suspect it probably is) is a biologic error, that makes sense. Why though, wuld that make it immoral? Is choosing not to have kids also immoral? I don't think so.

I think this is a key point. There are a lot of people out there who are fairly rational but have not been exposed to Objectivism. If we reach out to them there is a chance to "bring them into the fold." How can you fault someone for not being an Objectivist if they have never studied the philosophy? Is everyone expected to reinvent it themselves? Now on the other hand if someone does study Objectivism and explicitly rejects it then it is counterproductive to deal with them further. PS YoungWilliams? I didn't know you were in here. Mike Wevrick

I would certainly agree that an Objectivist is someone who follows Ayn Rand’s philosophy. The problem arises when we discuss areas like homosexuality where Objectivism does not give clear guidance. Just because Rand gave her opinion about some issue, that does not necessarily mean that she applied her own philosophy correctly. I would say that a true Objectivist is someone who follows and rationally applies the fundamental principles of Objectivism, not someone who agrees with every single word Rand said.

Hi, folks. New member here; great site! Abortion: I found a pretty good article at http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=273 The author's argument begins with: "Individual rights begin at birth, with the creation of a new, separate human being. Rights are a concept applicable only to individual, actual human beings, not a merely potential one. The fetus may become a human being, but until it is born and the umbilical cord is severed, it is part of an actual human being: the mother. By analogy, observe that an acorn is a potential oak tree, not an actual one; you may build a house out of an oak, but not from an acorn. The actual entity has attributes that the merely potential does not." I see a few problems with this: First, is a fetus really part of the mother's body in the same way that the heart is? It seems to me more like a tapeworm; that is, a parasitic organism that has its own identity but happens to live inside the body of another organism. Second, saying that the fetus is only a human being after the umbilical cord is cut implies that one could wait until the fetus was outside the body and breathing, and then still kill it. At this point the fetus is no longer dependent on the mother for oxygen, but still physically attached. So where is the exact dividing line? Another related issue: On what grounds do parents have an obligation to care for their children? One way to interpret objectivist ethics is to say that they don’t; nobody has any obligation to support anybody else.