Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Abortion

Rate this topic


semm

Recommended Posts

The same used to be said ...

Thank you. And to you too blue cherry. You prove my point. It really is all about values. Debate about the label of 'human' is a foil for whether or not something has value.

I have to tell you that many adults are more of a potential value to me than an actual value. their continued existence or nonexistence is irrelevant to me. However, to kill them would be murder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Debate about the label of 'human' is a foil for whether or not something has value."

No, it's a question of factual accuracy.

You also completely skipped over addressing the specific points in my and Sapere's posts. Among those points, notably, I mentioned that the label anybody uses is ultimately moot to any morality issues with abortion and that I know for darned sure that I personally would not respond any differently no matter what terms are used. Also, I brought up why your "value" thing is flawed because value is relational, not inherent. Why can't you kill any old Joe Schmo walking down the street? Aside from the fact that this person may actually be doing something productive which does/will influence your life in some way unbeknownst to you (note I said this person's activities are in present tense, like they are already involved in it), there's a logical error in doing that. We need logic and logic is all or nothing. What is the logical error in killing the stranger? It's trying to fight against the law of identity, not treating something according to what it is. What it *is*, not whatever it is called. Thus, terminology is irrelevant and the question goes back to being about whether or not the [insert term of choice here, for the sake of getting on with things] meets the criteria which causes we humans out and about in the world here to have rights. For more on that issue, see my previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

A is A, Objectivism is Objectivism. Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. If you disagree with Ayn Rand on any philosophical point, you are not an Objectivist. You may still have a lot of agreement with Objectivism, but if you disagree with the philosophy you cease to be identified properly as an Objectivist. This says nothing about the philosophical accuracy of her philosophy. This merely says that Objectivism is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Either one agrees with the philosophy of Ayn Rand or one does not. It is really that simple.

 

Best explanation of Objectivism I have ever read. Well done.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...
  • 6 months later...

The Washington Post has an article about a new clinic that offers abortion, but is taking a different approach in its marketing and positioning. Basically, instead of being low-key and borderline apologetic, they are bold, open and unapologetic about their services. I find this interesting. If this becomes more widespread, it could be the start of a movement that finally becomes like the gay movement: where it cows down the religious folk who want to use the law against it [of course, like gay politics it could go over the top too; but, we're nowhere there yet].

 

As someone who is pro-abortion, I think this is a good start, and I hope to see more such organizations... and more of such attitude in the future.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Washington Post has an article about a new clinic that offers abortion, but is taking a different approach in its marketing and positioning. Basically, instead of being low-key and borderline apologetic, they are bold, open and unapologetic about their services. I find this interesting. If this becomes more widespread, it could be the start of a movement that finally becomes like the gay movement: where it cows down the religious folk who want to use the law against it [of course, like gay politics it could go over the top too; but, we're nowhere there yet].

 

As someone who is pro-abortion, I think this is a good start, and I hope to see more such organizations... and more of such attitude in the future.

 

I sound like one of those political correctness idiots I hate so much but... would it be more accurate to say you are "pro-choice" rather than simply "pro-abortion"?  :)

 

I mean I know what you mean... others might not...

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sound like one of those political correctness idiots I hate so much but... would it be more accurate to say you are "pro-choice" rather than simply "pro-abortion"?  :)

 

I mean I know what you mean... others might not...

I've usually thought of myself as pro-choice, but recently I saw that this is really an artificial term if it is used specifically to apply to abortion. If a friend tells me he has decided to have brain surgery after considering the risks and benefits, I would never think of supporting him because I am "pro-choice". 

 

I think my default assumption for things like that should be that the patient and his doctor have figured out what to do, following some rational process. So, I think it is a wee bit more accurate to say I'm "pro brain surgery" or "pro colonoscopy" even though I don't want every one to undergo these procedures. The same for abortion.   ;)

 

(It also fits with the theme of being unapologetic in a slightly over-the-top way.)

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I sound like one of those political correctness idiots I hate so much but... would it be more accurate to say you are "pro-choice" rather than simply "pro-abortion"?  :)

 

I mean I know what you mean... others might not...

I'm pro-abortion. I believe that in the case of unwanted pregnancy, abortion isn't just a right, but the right choice.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

As someone who is pro-abortion, ...

 

 

I've usually thought of myself as pro-choice, but recently I saw that this is really an artificial term if it is used specifically to apply to abortion. If a friend tells me he has decided to have brain surgery after considering the risks and benefits, I would never think of supporting him because I am "pro-choice". 

 

I think my default assumption for things like that should be that the patient and his doctor have figured out what to do, following some rational process. So, I think it is a wee bit more accurate to say I'm "pro brain surgery" or "pro colonoscopy" even though I don't want every one to undergo these procedures. The same for abortion.   ;)

I was happy to see that someone writing an op-ed ,published by Salon, also used the "pro-abortion" meme, and in the same sense too. I hope it becomes a thing!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was chatting with someone recently and he confided something he had learnt about his mom: that she'd had a couple of abortions when she was young. (These were probably "backstreet abortions" in the 1950's.) Anyhow, he commented that -- as the second of two kids -- he would probably not have been born if his mom had decided to have her kids young. 

 

When I see the next sticker saying: "SMILE! Your mom chose life" I will now see it differently.

 

This guy is alive because his mom chose an abortion. And, in his own case, the question of choosing life never came up. The only time she really had to think about things and make a choice was when she was young, and she chose abortion, and so this guy exists.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

In a surprise ruling, the SCOTUS pushed back on Texas' attempt to restrict abortions. With just  8-members many expected the decision to break 4:4, but centrist Kennedy (bless his soul) voted against Texan restrictions.

For those who don't follow the topic: states like Texas continue to force abortion clinics to meet increasingly stringent and expensive regulations, in the name of health and safety. It's widely recognized that the health/safety argument is a fig-leaf from the Christian right (who are vehement that they hate government regulations). The SCOTUS usually does not like to delve into a second-level of detail: tending to accept the legislative characterization of whether something helps health/safety. So, Kennedy's vote is particularly commendable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...