pl1985

If abortion is moral than so is killing young dependent family members if you decide they have become 'rights-restricters'. At the 'brain waves' stage of development at least. There there is consciousness, and it is human consciousness albeit an underdeveloped mode. Abortion is an act of non-retaliatory killing. You cannot morally sanction murder. The only room for moral judgment in and relevant to this debate is whether parents have a moral obligation to ensure the survival of their children. If they do, abortion is immoral and children cannot be considered 'rights-restricters'. If they don't, then abortion is still immoral. Under that premise, having the baby and immediately placing it out on the sidewalk to fend for itself wouldn't be immoral and therefore would not be a illegal.

It's sad to see that Objectivism apparently now has a 'political platform' that, like the two parties, skirts philosophy and thought by talking about 'the issues' and which ones all objectivists must support, without providing any rational basis or evidence of broad support in favor. Looks like more people modeling themselves stylistically off Rand's characters than living the philosophy. Someone said I can't be an objectivist and 'rationalize islamic terrorism'. I never tried to say it was moral. I tried to explain it. Then this guy gives an argument that unequivocally morally sanctions parents to kill children under 18 and adults to kill retards of all ages because of 'undeveloped' natural rights. My stance on abortion isn't about God or capital C Creation, because I believe in neither. It's about the fact that once a human is, it is, and it has rights. Is a baby without the right to live seconds before it comes out of the womb? Is a six-month-year-old without the right to live because it can't read, write or speak? Is an eight year old without the right to live because he doesn't fully understand capitalism and the concept of natural rights? Do you have the right to rob and kill any retarded or mentally ill person, as if you were hunting a deer? I can't address that further, but I'll address the terrorism argument. You're right, I can't rationalize Islamic terrorism, and I'm not trying to. But I can't rationalize our foreign policy in the Middle East either. If any of those countries declared war or attacked the US, or showed that an attack was imminent, I would say nuke every inch of it and set an example. But that won't happen, because these countries are impotent, their people are impotent, their philosophy is impotent, their religion is impotent. They are not a threat to anyone but themselves. Our presence there motivates countless coward suicide bombers just enough to strap on a bomb and walk across the street, not to wage international war and take down military superpowers. If we got out, the drive of 90% of the latest terrorist recruits would fizzle off, and even the most committed jihadists would be reluctant to go through with suicide when they can't even see the enemy. The only thing about the Middle East that isn't impotent is oil, and my point was that we have enough oil in Alaska to last us 200 years, so let's at least wait another 150 years before we start worrying about wrestling natural resources or 'interests' in them from non-free nations, which we have every right to do but is not necessary. If I was an eco-hippie, would I advocate drilling and digging for every resource America has? Back to foreign policy. Should we nuke every questionably-free and non-free nation tomorrow? What does that benefit us? Why was that not necessary during all of America's meteoric rise to uncontested world economic super-power? (which has slowed to a crawl in the last 90 or so years)

Aside from references to religion, I think the main reason Ron Paul doesn't get support from objectivists is because of his stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and with all the talk of the christian just war theory he has also said that he would have no problem annihilating every inch of a country if they attacked us or showed an imminent threat. As far as response against the 'war on terror', he voted for our entrance into Afghanistan to attack terrorists and advocates Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which treat terrorism as a criminal activity and allow for US troops to enter foreign nations and engage in counterterrorism missions. 'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation. If we get out of the Middle East and leave other nations to nation-build there, then if the terrorists do ever get a hold of a bomb then they wont use it on the US. And putting democracy, which can then vote in any form of government, in the middle east is not going to do anything significant to stop terrorists from acquiring a nuclear weapon. the USSR probably has hundred of nuclear weapons unaccounted for; who's to say the terrorists or a non-nuclear nation doesnt already have one. The main issue is that we have no reason to be there. The Middle East has nothing to offer the US except oil, and that oil is not crucial to our economy. There is more oil in the north shore of Alaska than Saudi Arabia; we should drill for all the resources we have, go completely nuclear, and if the time ever comes when we need more resources, that is the point we should destroy non-free governments in order to open up trade for their natural resources or simply annex the countries. Did none of you read 'The Lessons of Vietnam' by Ayn Rand? She was also no pacifist, but she recognized when war and nation-building have value and when it is futile. Right now it's futile. I have no doubt that most of the nations of the Middle East have no right to exist, but now is not the time to attack or occupy. The Middle Eastern nations are impotent bush-league countries that present no threat to the US. And occupation of their nations is not ultimately going to stop terrorists from acquiring a nuclear bomb. We should pull out of the Middle East, maintain our strong national defense, abolish the welfare state and return to laissez faire. once we abolish or drastically reduce the welfare state, Ron Paul advocates free flow of labor across borders; it was part of his platform in 1988 and it still is now. his reason for opposing immigration is that we cant afford the entitlements for illegal immigrants. those are the main tenets of Ron Paul's platform.

I am voting for Ron Paul, but I have a few bones with his platform. First is the references to natural rights 'from the Creator', and that the USA was intended to be a 'robustly Christian nation.' The latter may or may not be true, but we should strive to eliminate religion from government while allowing the individual unrestricted religious freedom. [As much as I'm in line with Objectivism, I agree with Ron Paul on abortion, only because I believe it is a human being after conception. It has nothing at all to do with religion, it's my rational judgment of the situation. It is made of human cells, has the proportions and many of the organs and 'infrastructure' of a fully developed man. I we could combat unwanted births by making birth control pills and OTC contraceptives like the morning after pill affordable and available without restrictions or prescriptions necessary.] Aside from references to religion, I think the main reason Ron Paul doesn't get support is because of his stance on foreign policy. Ron Paul is not a pacifist, and with all the talk of the christian just war theory he would have no problem annihilating every inch of a country if they attacked us or showed an imminent threat. As far as response against the 'war on terror', he voted for our entrance into Afghanistan to attack terrorists and advocates Letters of Marque and Reprisal, which treat terrorism as a criminal activity and allow for US troops to enter foreign nations and engage in counterterrorism missions. 'Intervention' in the Middle East is unecessary, and terrorism is not a potent threat, it is only a reaction to foreign occupation of Middle Eastern countries. Name one Islamic terrorist attack in world history that was not linked to occupation by foreign armies or ethnic cleansing of Arabs/Muslims. Of late, attacks on Spain, the UK, and the USA were all openly justified by Al Qaeda as a response to foreign military occupation. There is more oil in the north shore of Alaska than Saudi Arabia; we should drill for all the resources we have, go completely nuclear, and if the time ever comes when we need more resources, that is the point we should destroy non-free governments in order to open up trade for their natural resources or simply annex the countries. Did none of you read 'The Lessons of Vietnam' by Ayn Rand? She was also no pacifist, but she recognized when war and nation-building has value and when it is futile. Right now it's futile.