Search the Community

“We are seeing an incredible acceleration in the speed and in the breadth of the restrictions on abortion that are passing” at the state level, says Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights and a supporter of abortion rights. The Wall Street Journal reports that, among recently passed abortion restrictions in the states, Arkansas outlawed most abortions after 12 weeks pregnancy, while North Dakota “banned the procedure as early as six weeks into a pregnancy,” depending on the detection of a fetal heartbeat. And the Huffington Post reports that Kansas passed a law that (among other things) mandates what doctors must tell their patients regarding abortion. The Kansas law also declares that life begins at fertilization—an odd legal declaration given that no one contests that a zygote is alive. The language is, of course, a nod to the “personhood” movement, which seeks to establish that a zygote is not only alive but also a person with all the legal rights of a born infant. But neither the life nor the heartbeat of an embryo or fetus gives rise to rights. As Diana Hsieh and show in our TOS article, “The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties”: Rights are factual requirements of human survival and flourishing in society. They apply only to human beings living and acting as individuals in a social context—not to embryos or fetuses in the womb. (See the article for our full argument.) When the government creates ersatz “rights” for embryos and fetuses, it necessarily violates the genuine rights of pregnant women and their doctors. Laws that outlaw abortion violate a woman’s right to control her own body and to decide her own future, declaring her a criminal and subjecting her to legal action if she seeks an abortion. The Kansas law (and similar laws in other states) violates doctors’ rights to practice medicine by their own judgment, and it violates the rights of doctors and patients to negotiate health services as they see fit. Embryos and fetuses do not and logically cannot have rights. By pretending otherwise, governments violate the rights of actual people. States should repeal all such rights-violating laws—and rights-respecting Americans morally must demand that they do. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties With Abortion Ban Proposal, Rand Paul Assaults Rights and Aids Democrats Link to Original

Hospital Death in Ireland Renews Fight Over Abortion: The woman, Savita Halappanavar, 31, a dentist who lived near Galway, was 17 weeks pregnant when she sought treatment at University Hospital Galway on Oct. 21, complaining of severe back pain. Dr. Halappanavar was informed by senior hospital physicians that she was having a miscarriage and that her fetus had no chance of survival. However, despite repeated pleas for an abortion, she was told that it would be illegal while the fetus’s heart was still beating, her husband, Praveen Halappanavar, said. It was not until Oct. 24 that the heartbeat ceased and the remains of the fetus were surgically removed. But Dr. Halappanavar contracted a bacterial blood disease, septicemia. She was admitted to intensive care but never recovered, dying on Oct. 28. Mr. Halappanavar, in an interview with The Irish Times from his home in India, said his wife was told after one request, “This is a Catholic country.” On Facebook, I’ve seen some advocates of abortion bans claim that her death cannot be definitively proved to have been caused by the failure of the doctors to abort her dying fetus. That’s true, but utterly beside the point. Very little in medicine is cut and dried. The human body is immensely complex, and doctors mostly deal in probabilities, not certainties. That’s part of why it’s so important for each person — guided by the advice of her doctors — to make her own decisions about her medical care. People differ in their values, and hence, in the risks they’re willing to accept or not. For a person to be free to live her own life requires that she be free to decide what risks to take with her own body and health — without interference from the government. For the government to dictate or outlaw certain kinds of medical treatments means subjecting people to risks contrary to their own best judgment of their own interests. That’s a violation of their rights, plain and simple. That’s true for all medical care, including abortion. That’s why laws banning abortion violate rights, even when they allow for exceptions to save the life of the mother. All pregnancy is risky: the maternal death rate in the United States is 16 out of 100,000. Many women are unwilling to undergo that risk, not to mention all the other complications and risks of pregnancy — and rightly so. Because the embryo/fetus is not a person with the right to life, a woman has the right to decide, based purely on her judgment of her own best interests, that she’s not willing to bear the risks of pregnancy, and hence, to terminate her pregnancy. In contrast, under laws that permit abortion only to save the life of the mother, doctors would be constantly subject to second-guessing by police, prosecutors, and courts — and perhaps, subject to very serious criminal charges for murder or manslaughter. That’s why women die under abortion bans, regardless of provisions that permit doctors to act to save the the woman’s life. The doctor cannot afford to be blind to the risk to his own life and liberty of performing an abortion, even to save a woman’s life. The advocates of abortion bans seek to evade the consequences of their own policies when confronted by these kinds of cases by claiming that the woman might have died anyway, even if she’d been able to terminate the pregnancy. That might be true, but that should have been her decision to make. Instead, she was preventing from acting based on her own best judgment in service of her life. That’s a major violation of her fundamental rights. Ultimately, as Savita Halappanavar’s husband said, “It was all in their hands, and they just let her go. How can you let a young woman go to save a baby who will die anyway?” I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: opposition to abortion rights is not “pro-life.” Link to Original

Suppose a criminal brutally raped your daughter or friend and impregnated her, she got an abortion, and then the government subjected her to first-degree murder charges (for killing the fetus) and handed her life imprisonment or the death penalty. A proposal likely to appear on the Colorado ballot in 2014 carries this potential. The measure would—if interpreted by the courts as its sponsors intend—criminalize every intentional killing of an embryo or fetus, whatever the reason. It would outlaw not only all abortions—even in cases of rape, incest, fetal deformity, and risks to the woman’s health—but all forms of birth control, in vitro fertilization, and stem-cell research that might kill an embryo. Anyone violating the law could be charged with first-degree murder. If the measure sounds too insane to be real—or if it sounds like it could be seriously proposed only in places like Saudi Arabia—consider the measure’s language and what its sponsors have said about it. One of the two sponsors of the measure is Gualberto Garcia Jones, who sits on the board of Personhood USA. This organization calls itself a “Christian ministry” and considers all embryos and fetuses to be “preborn children” deserving the same legal rights as (born) people. Personhood USA supported two previous “personhood” measures in Colorado, one in 2008 and another in 2010. (Voters defeated each measure by wide margins.) The 2014 measure (known by the Colorado Secretary of State as Initiative 5) is worded differently than were the previous two proposals, but its intended effect is the same. The measure calls for “homicide prosecutions for killing the unborn.” On September 30, supporters of the measure submitted signatures to place it on the Colorado ballot. (The Secretary of State must review the signatures before formally placing it on the ballot.) The measure declares that “the words ‘person’ and ‘child’ in the Colorado criminal code and the Colorado wrongful death act must include unborn human beings.” Jones explicitly equates a drunk driver who injures a woman and thereby kills her fetus with a doctor who provides an abortion: Both, in his view, deserve criminal prosecution. (Whether the courts would interpret the proposal to include all embryos and fetuses as “unborn human beings,” the measure’s sponsors clearly intend the courts to do just that.) The proposal would subject anyone who intentionally kills an embryo or fetus to first-degree murder charges—whether a pregnant woman seeking an abortion, a doctor who provides one, an in vitro fertility provider who destroys unused embryos, and so on. Colorado statute 18-3-102 states: A person commits the crime of murder in the first degree if . . . [a]fter deliberation and with the intent to cause the death of a person other than himself, he causes the death of that person or of another person. . . . First-degree murder is a Class 1 felony under Colorado law. Colorado statute 18-1.3-1201 states that the penalty for a Class 1 felony is the death penalty or “life imprisonment.” Obviously, then, if the term “person” in Colorado’s criminal statutes includes all embryos and fetuses, the deliberate and intentional killing of any embryo or fetus would be considered first-degree murder under existing statutes. One difference between the 2014 proposal and the previous “personhood” proposals is its packaging. Supporters of the measure call it the “Brady Amendment,” after Brady, the name that Heather Surovik gave her eight-month-old fetus who was killed by a drunk driver. (Surovik is listed as the second sponsor of the measure, along with Jones.) Calling this proposal the “Brady Amendment” adds injury to absurdity by tying the proposal to a genuinely criminal act. The law would do far more than punish criminals who kill a woman’s embryo or fetus against her wishes—it would also punish women, doctors, and others for ending a pregnancy in accordance with a woman’s moral right. Moreover, Colorado already has a law that punishes criminals for killing a fetus or embryo against the wishes of the pregnant woman. On June 5, Governor John Hickenlooper signed bill 13-1154, the “Crimes Against Pregnant Women Act,” which carefully distinguishes between an abortion a woman wants and a criminal assault that kills her embryo or fetus. Notably, Personhood USA opposed the bill because it did not grant full legal “rights” to embryos and fetuses. The so-called “Brady Amendment” cannot be dismissed as the insanity of a tiny fringe group, as around 140,000 people signed this year’s “personhood” measure, and “personhood” is widely embraced by leading Colorado Republicans. At least three possible candidates for governor support “personhood” to varying degrees, as do three possible candidates for U.S. Senate and three standing members of Congress in Colorado. A Colorado religious leader in this video explicitly calls for the death penalty for women who get abortions. Although the measure is not likely to pass a popular vote next year—and, even if it did, it is not likely to pass judicial muster anytime soon—“personhood” supporters are serious about someday making their proposals the law of the land. Deadly serious. Those who recognize what rights are—and that women have them whereas embryos and fetuses do not—should be outraged at the very thought of such a measure, let alone a movement with the backing this proposal has today. Speak up. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties Ayn Rand’s Theory of Rights: The Moral Foundation of a Free Society Planned Parenthood and Others Admirably Fight Texas Anti-Abortion Bill Link to Original

From http://www.salon.com/2015/05/25/working_at_an_abortion_clinic_challenged_my_pro_choice_views_%E2%80%94_and_confirmed_them/'>Working at an abortion clinic challenged my pro-choice views

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog The Boulder Weekly published the following op-ed on Amendment 48 by Ari Armstrong and myself yesterday: Abortion and Abolition by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong Colorado is ground zero in a national battle over the morality of abortion, and the defenders of abortion rights are ceding ground. The opponents of abortion declare that every human life is endowed by God with an inalienable right to life. To terminate a pregnancy, whatever the circumstances, is murder. Republican presidential candidate John McCain seeks to overturn Roe v. Wade, then "end abortion at the state level." His running mate Sarah Palin says she's as "pro-life as any candidate can be." She thinks "abortion [should] only be allowed if the life of the mother is endangered." Colorado's Amendment 48 inaugurates a new strategy for ending abortion. Instead of restricting abortion via piecemeal government controls, the measure would usher in a near-total ban on abortion by defining a fertilized egg as a person with full legal rights in the state constitution. The opponents of abortion claim the sanction of divine morality, based on the premise that "life begins at conception." Many anti-abortionists now openly seek to ban not only abortion and most fertility treatments, but also the birth control pill, morning after pill, and IUD because they may prevent a fertilized egg from implanting in the uterus. Amendment 48 would help them do that. Given this all-out assault on reproductive rights, traditional defenders of abortion might be expected to launch a vigorous counter-attack. Instead, they've dodged tough questions and conceded basic principles, leaving reproductive rights with a flimsy defense. When Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama was asked when a baby gets "human rights," he famously declared the question to be "above [his] pay grade." Yet he will be called on to judge such matters if elected. His running mate Joe Biden accepts the teachings of his Catholic Church: the fertilized egg is a human person. Yet he regards abortion as "a personal and private issue" -- as if the state should allow every person to decide for himself whether or not to recognize the rights of others, so long as any killings happen behind closed doors. That's clearly wrong: if an embryo or fetus is a person, then abortion is murder. If not, then it's a woman's right. In response to the threat posed by Amendment 48, the traditional defenders of abortion rights -- such as Planned Parenthood and NARAL -- organized a broad coalition to fight the measure. They persuasively argue that Amendment 48 would have disastrous legal consequences for abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization. Yet their oft-repeated slogan of "it simply goes too far" is a whopping concession to their opponents. It implies that abortion, birth control and in-vitro fertilization could be and perhaps ought to be restricted -- just not as severely as Amendment 48 would do. Instead of upholding reproductive rights, the slogan implicitly welcomes further incremental controls on abortion. Just imagine if the abolitionists of the 19th century had attempted to defend the inalienable rights of slaves based on the slogan, "slavery: it simply goes too far." Imagine Lincoln declaring the morality of slavery to be "above [his] pay grade." The monstrous evil of slavery would still exist today. The recognition and protection of the rights of slaves required an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the facts of human nature. Similarly, the recognition and protection of abortion rights requires an uncompromising defense of those rights based on the all-important differences between a fetus and a baby. Neither an embryo nor a fetus is a human person with a right to life. While still in the womb, it exists as part of the woman, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. A fetus is only a potential person without a right to life. That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives his own life, outside his mother. Although very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food and moves on his own. He can leave his mother to be cared for by someone else. He has a life of his own that must be protected as a matter of right, just the same as every other person. During a pregnancy, the only person with rights is the pregnant woman. She has a right to liberty, including a right to use her body as she pleases. So she has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy -- for any reason. If an abortion will further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience. The growing faith-based opposition to abortion cannot be countered by vague appeals to choice and privacy. Roe v. Wade will be overturned and Amendment 48 (or its like) will be passed without a clear, consistent and positive defense of abortion rights. We must be as principled in our defense of a woman's right to her own body as were the abolitionists in defending the rights of slaves. Liberty cannot be won by any other means. Diana Hsieh is the founder of the Coalition for Secular Government. Ari Armstrong is the editor of FreeColorado.com. They co-authored "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life," available through SecularGovernment.us. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/004226.html

Letter and Reply on Abortion Rights: The latest issue of The Objective Standard was recently posted online. In it, Ari Armstrong and I replied to a letter from Walter Hudson on our essay in defense of abortion rights. Hudson is a writer for PJ Media and the chair of Minnesota's North Star Tea Party Patriots. For the full story, first read Ari's and my essay: The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties. Then read Hudson's letter and our reply: An Objective Case Against Abortion? Hudson's letter begins: The thing I most admire about Objectivism is its uncompromising affirmation of life. No other philosophy I have encountered consistently holds thriving human existence as its chief value. I was therefore disappointed to read Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong's argument for an alleged right to terminate the life of the unborn ("The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties," TOS, Winter 2011-2012). In the interest of full disclosure, I confess that I am a Christian, and thus not an Objectivist. I nonetheless consider myself an advocate of Objectivism's prescriptions for civil society, and I am cognizant of the necessity for objective rational argument in the craft of public policy. Our reply begins: Walter Hudson's letter regarding our article neglects our central argument and relies on a faulty theory of rights. Hudson rightly recognizes that the philosophy we subscribe to, Objectivism, entails an "uncompromising affirmation of life"; however, this must be understood in its proper context. Each individual properly acts to sustain and advance his own life, neither sacrificing himself to others nor others to himself. As concerns pregnancy, the key question is whether an embryo or fetus is a person with the same moral and legal rights as a born infant (in which case abortion is murder) or not (in which case abortion is a woman's right). Now... go read the whole exchange: An Objective Case Against Abortion? Original entry: See link at top of this post

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/06/sd....tion/index.html [Qwertz mumbles something about the Peoples' States of Jesus.] Is it just me, or does it seem too coincidental with the 'ascendancy' of Alito and Roberts to SCOTUS? The anti-abortion nazis are wasting no time in gearing up to take down Roe. Not that Roe was particularly good law, mind you, but it's better than what the Jesus Police want. Anyone good at cartoons? How about one of Jesus helping 'take care' of Mary Magdaline's 'problem?' -Q

Mods: this is only my second post here, and I fear that I may be starting off on the wrong foot by putting this in the wrong topic. It could be argued that it belongs in the debate section or the politics section, etc., as it is sort of broad. If I have erred in my placement, please move it and accept my apologies. Abortion is one of those topics that seems capable of dividing people otherwise in solidarity on most ideological grounds. Most of the discussions regarding the ethics of abortion seem to gravitate to a discussion of when a multi-cellular clump of tissue with human DNA becomes an actual human, worthy of rights. I've read thorough numerous pages of the several abortion topics here in Ethics, and while there certainly were numerous posts pushing the question back in the proper direction, most of the people who are struggling with the issue still gravitate toward the natural question of when the fetus is bestowed with rights. Based on my reading here, I think that many people believe that Ayn Rand's position is that up until the moment of birth, the decision to terminate the fetus is solely the woman's. While she may have literally said those words, I'm of the mind that she was intelligent and honest enough to see that, from any meaningful standpoint, there is no difference between the fetus on the day it was born and the day before that. I read her statements mostly as largely focused on early term abortion with no concept of viability. My analysis of the issue has led me to the conclusion that whether or not the fetus is human, has rights, etc. is, for the most part, irrelevant to the discussion. I will attempt to illustrate by way of analogy. Say I carry a firearm for self defense. I am accosted by someone and have a reasonable and well founded fear of imminent serious bodily injury or death (or whatever your personal moral or legal standard for the use of lethal force is). When I resort to using my firearm, although this seems counter-intuitive at first glance, I do not do so because I want to kill the attacker. I do so because I want to terminate the attacker's infringement of my rights, and my use of lethal force is the surest way to accomplish that. The possibility (or eventuality) that the attacker dies is incidental, and is not the primary goal. Here the attacker is certainly human, and certainly has rights, but his rights do not trump mine. His right to live must be violated in order to preserve my right to be free of his attack. One could argue that if I presently possess a means of terminating his attack, that would not result in his death, but is equally effective in terminating it, consistent with my safety, that I should be obligated to choose that avenue. This analogy fails to match the abortion scenario in a couple fundamental ways, all of which can be overcome with additional analogies. First, the attacker is acting intentionally and maliciously and the fetus is not. This weakness in the analogy is easy to overcome. If instead of a mugger, the person were a retarded individual with an IQ of 50, standing in the middle of a mall, firing a handgun that they found, but having no concept that it is anything other than a toy, and no concept they are hurting anybody, you would still legally and morally be justified in shooting them. Their guilt, innocence, or intent is not relevant. Again, it isn't that you want or need to kill the person (who certainly is human, and has rights), it is that you need them to cease their violation of the rights of others by whatever means necessary. This still only gets us so far. Even those opposed to abortion will frequently concede that abortion is permissible in cases where the mother's life is threatened (which closely parallels the "retarded person with a gun in the mall" scenario). But what of a fetus that does not pose a (known) immediate threat to the life of the mother? Instead of a threat to the life of the mother, it is more of an interloper of sorts -- who is using the resources of the mother's body -- and we are assuming that the mother does not consent to such use. In my opinion, any reasonable person would conclude that using someone else's body without their consent is a violation of their rights. If you disagree with that, we'll deal with it in a bit. But, even if you agree it is a violation of their rights, is killing the fetus justified in this situation? This is where we have to remember that we don't necessarily want to kill the fetus, we just don't want it using our body against our will -- whether or not it can survive by other means is an issue for science to contend with. Obviously the only way to prevent the use of the woman's body against her will is for the fetus to be removed. If the fetus is so underdeveloped that it could not possibly survive once removed, then the method of removing it should simply be whatever is the safest, most cost effective, etc., at the discretion of the mother. If however the fetus is developed to the point where it is even possible that it could survive once removed, then one might reasonably argue that if there were two equally effective and safe (relative to the health of the mother) methods of removing it, and one implicitly involved the destruction of the fetus while the other offered the chance of survival if it were capable, then the option offering the chance of survival could be required. If it lives, then the ordinary legal requirements of parenthood are in effect, but the mother could also opt to surrender it to the State -- in other words, put it up for adoption. To be clear, if the "chance of survival" delivery method were more risky to the mother, she'd be under no obligation to undergo it as we cannot demand that she expose herself to risk just for a potentially more favorable outcome to the (unwitting) offender. It would seem now that the only weakness in the above being persuasive to all but the most intractable would be if they disagree with the notion that the fetus is infringing on the rights of the mother by using her body against her will. For that I really like this passage by Judith Jarvis Thompson [A Defense of Abortion, Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 1, no. 1 (Fall 1971)]: The determined will object that Henry Fonda owes me nothing, but the person who became pregnant owes a duty to the fetus that a stranger does not. Dismissing that notion seems as simple as asking when does that duty end? Assume that your 3 year old child needs a liver transplant, you are a match, and could donate part of your liver and survive just fine. As a parent, you might say you'd do it without a second thought. But that's not the question. The question is, "may the state compel you to do it against your will?" While I'm sure there is someone, somewhere that would answer yes to that question, in my mind that person is hopelessly lost and debating with them would be pointless. For the rest, the parallel should be clear. If the state may not compel you to share your body with your born, living child, how can it compel you to do so with the developing fetus? Additionally, say I own the only iron lung in the city, and Mr. Jones needs an iron lung or he will die. Nevertheless, I cannot be compelled to let him use it -- even if I only plan to let it sit idle. How is a person's body any less worthy of protection than my control over mere personal property? Others will also attempt to argue that the woman was culpable in the pregnancy (with some differences of opinion in the cases of rape, etc.) and therefore surrendered the right to control the use of her body. This notion has been responded to by some with analogies to cigarette smokers having the right to kill the cancer that may result, etc. That argument suffers from the weakness that the cancer is arguably not human, in no way cable of surviving independently, etc. My personal favorite for the "you earned it" argument follows. Most would agree that while it may not be smart, I have a right to walk through a "bad part of town", at night, richly dressed, counting a large stack of 100 dollar bills as I do so. Most would also say that if I did that I might reasonably expect that someone would try to take my property from me against my will (or worse). But most would also agree that even though I put myself in that situation voluntarily, and while it was a stupid thing to do, and although I should have reasonably expected that someone would try to violate my rights as a result, I haven't surrendered the right to defend myself. A more emotionally charged variant on this theme would be if I was a hot twenty-something female, dressed in provocative attire, walking alone at night, in a seedy part of town, have I forfeited the right to defend myself if someone attempts to rape me? Rape is an especially interesting parallel to use. It involves the non-consensual "use" of your body, does not necessarily involve your injury (or even the use of force if for example you are unconscious), yet you absolutely have the right to refuse consent and defend yourself from it with lethal force if necessary. I feel the above is quite thoroughly persuasive on the topic and leaves little room for honest intellectual disagreement. I really wish it could be synthesized down into something a little more brief. Given the glut of words above, I guess I have two questions: For those who agree, do you see any objection it fails to overcome with reasoning that should be broadly relevant (in other words that most people would agree with -- even if they were pro-life)? For those who disagree (and still think the government should be able to bar abortion) how does the above fail to persuade?

This is an article in the news analyzing Rands view on abortion: (they have a comment section) http://liveactionnews.org/ayn-rand-on-abortion/

This thread is not just another thread on abortion. It is different because I share the Objectivist notion that the unborn has no rights. Women who choose abortion and their doctors and nurses should not be considered criminals and put under retaliatory force by the State. My approach here is to show how abortion can be judged as moral or immoral, based on an Objectivist ethics, beyond the usual discussion of rights. I'll start by telling you about Misha, my cat. She was adopted by my family about two years ago. She was very young and lonely, an alley cat. This is a pic of her La gata (5) por Hotu Matua, en Flickr We knew very little about cats. We imagined it would be a matter of getting for her a place for she to defecate, cat food and vaccines from the vet. Soon we realized she was destroying our furniture. We could not cope with cutting her nails frequently enough. Yesterday we sent our sofa and chairs to be upholstered. We know this will not stop here. We have thought in getting rid of Misha. We have looked for months for families that would adopt her. No success. I have thought in abandoning her on a hill nearby, where I have seen some feral cats. A feral cat is a descendant of a domesticated cat that has gone back to the wild. My wife and I have even engaged in fantasies on how to kill her. In the end, we always discard abandoning her or killing her... and we keep looking for other "foster parents". Would it be immoral if I posion Misha? I think it would. I think that keeping her alive and losing my furniture is more valuable to me than killing her and keeping my furniture. But is this thinking rational? and how does it relate to the abortion issue? More to come...

Although historian Jennifer Burns gets a lot wrong about Ayn Rand, she makes some good points in a recent op-ed for the New York Times. Burns discusses Rand’s ideas in relation to those of Paul Ryan, the GOP’s vice-presidential candidate who has credited Rand for inspiring him to enter politics. To be sure, the op-ed contains some ridiculous assertions; for example, Burns claims that Rand would have “scoffed” at the prospect of someone entering politics (which Ryan described as “public service”), and she ludicrously claims that Tea Party members “believe they are the only ones who deserve government aid.” Burns is right, however, in recalling the following: Years before Roe v. Wade, Rand called abortion “a moral right which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved.” She condemned the military draft and American involvement in Vietnam. She warned against recreational drugs but thought government had no right to ban them. These aspects of Rand do not fit with a political view that weds fiscal and social conservatism. Burns unpersuasively claims that even in the context of Obama’s assaults on producers and economic liberty Rand would have considered Ryan’s position on the Republican ticket to be a “nightmare.” But Burns is certainly correct that Rand would have condemned many of Ryan’s beliefs and policies. Rand would have condemned any and all policies that involve the violation of individual rights. Americans would do well adopt this policy as their own. Like this post? Join our mailing list to receive our weekly digest. And for in-depth commentary from an Objectivist perspective, subscribe to our quarterly journal, The Objective Standard. Related: Review: Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right by Jennifer Burns Paul Ryan Rejects Ayn Rand’s Ideas—In Word and Deed Principle vs. Pragmatism in Supporting Romney-Ryan The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties Image: Jennifer Burns Original: http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blog/index.php/2012/08/rand-supported-legal-abortion-and-other-rights-burns-notes/

From the Irish Times: A pregnant woman was admitted to an Irish hospital reporting pain. A doctor told them the cervix was leaking and the fetus would not survive. The woman was in pain and in many countries the fetus would have been aborted to avoid risks to the mother. The doctor said they had to wait till there was no fetal heartbeat. He estimated it would be a few hours, but the heartbeat last three days. The woman died of the resulting infection. She was 31 years old. Bloomberg reports protests in Ireland. The Irish law does not exist because some dictatorial government bullies runs the country. For Irish law-makers, relaxing abortion law has been "politically costly". In other words: Irish voters are to blame for this woman's death.

To my knowledge this particular aspect of the issue of abortion has not been discussed yet- but if it has, please point me in the direction and ignore this thread. I am posting under Ethics rather than Politics because I'm more concerned with the basic ethics of this issue upon which political decisions are based. As far as I can tell most of the people on the "pro-abortion" side seem to view the fetus as a parasitic invader into a woman's body and thus the ethical legitimacy of aborting it. However, (excluding extremely rare instances such as rape) it is sort of common knowledge that intercourse leads to pregnancy apart from effective intervention. Therefore, at the very least, isn't abortion a rather crude form of abdicating/evading one's responsibilities? If you know that intercourse naturally leads to pregnancy and you proceed to engage in intercourse while expecting to avoid pregnancy, aren't you attempting to evade a metaphysical reality of nature? Isn't it also rather absurd to refer to a fetus as a parasitic invader when you knowingly engaged in an action which resulted in the "parasite" forming in your body? And if this is legitimate, why is it not also legitimate to turn around and take legal action against the male who introduced the necessary half of the parasite into your body (in spite of the fact that the intercourse was consensual)? I am not putting this forward as a FULL argument against abortion, but rather as a response to an irrational attitude which seems to support abortion. Additionally though, can anyone point me in the direction of a thread/article from an Objectivist position which clearly and concisely answers the question about WHEN exactly the "fetus" passes from "parasite" with no rights to "human" with rights?? And what the rational justification is for such a position on the distinction between parasitic fetus and human child?

By Paul Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog William Saletan of Slate has recently posted a couple of informative updates on the Bush administration's attempt (or lack thereof) to define abortion. The context is the proposed new law that would grant special protections for religious health care workers who chose not to provide abortion care or information to patients out of reasons of "conscience". In effect, the new law would forbid employers from firing such workers and enforce this by threatening the employer with loss of federal funding. Leaving apart the fact that such issues should be settled by private contract (as nicely argued by Thomas Bowden of the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights in their recent press release, "Let Doctors Protect Conscience by Contract"), this proposed law has spawned a controversy over what exactly constitutes an "abortion" in the eyes of the federal government. As Saletan documents in his first piece from 8/28/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge", the initial definition was: ...[A]ny of the various procedures -- including the prescription, dispensing and administration of any drug or the performance of any procedure or any other action -- that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation However, this was dropped after protest from physicians and reproductive rights advocates who correctly noted that this would include some forms of birth control that are not generally regarded as "abortion" -- including IUDs and sometimes birth control pills. Saletan also points out that a number of religious advocacy groups have already argued that "hormonal contraception is abortion", including Pharmacists for Life International, Christian Legal Society, and Concerned Women for America, and that the current definition still leaves the door open for this interpretation. When others have asked Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt to clarify this point, he has been cagey. In Saleton's second piece from 8/29/2008, "Contraceptive Fudge: Addendum", he notes the following statement by Leavitt: But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that." Secretary Leavitt is trying to have it both ways. While claiming this would not "change a patient's right to a legal procedure", his deliberate characterization of this issue as one of "ambiguity" is leaving the door open for the conflation of popular forms of birth control with abortion, and thus preparing the way for future restrictions of birth control in the name of restricting abortion. Saletan also explicitly supports the private contract approach to the "conscience" issue, and I applaud his principled stance: As a pharmacist, you have every right to refuse to fill contraceptive prescriptions. But your customers have every right to boycott your store, and your employer has every right to fire you. If you don't like your employer's policy, open your own pharmacy. He also notes that federal government is soliciting citizens' opinions on this issue. You can e-mail them at: [email protected]. Here's a slightly edited version of the comment I sent them: The US government needs to be completely clear and unambiguous as to whether it regards standard forms of contraception such as birth control pills and IUDs as forms of "abortion", if they result in the expulsion of an egg that has already been fertilized but not yet undergone implantation. Rather than fudging this issue and calling it an "ambiguity", it must let practicing physicians such as myself know whether restrictions on abortion will also entail restrictions on these other forms of contraception. If the Bush administration wants to call those "abortions", then please be up front about it and say so. If the administration does not consider those to be "abortions", then say so and clear the air. To straddle the fence does a grave disservice to millions of men and women, and also leads to the concern that there is a hidden agenda amongst some in the government to also include restrictions on these forms of birth control when they propose future restrictions on abortions. Paul Hsieh, MD You too can let the Feds know what you think! http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003992.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-york-north-yorkshire-19621675

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Last week, I sent out the following op-ed on abortion -- particularly focusing on Colorado's Amendment 48 -- to the various Colorado papers: Abortion Is a Woman's Right Colorado voters face a stark moral choice in this election: vote yea or nay on Amendment 48. That ballot measure would grant fertilized eggs the legal standing of persons--including "inalienable rights, equality of justice, and due process of law"--in the state constitution. If fully implemented, almost all abortions would be outlawed in Colorado, including in cases of rape, incest, and fetal deformity. Any woman who terminated a pregnancy would be guilty of murder, subject to life in prison or the death penalty. To take the birth control pill, which might sometimes prevent the implantation of an embryo in the womb, would be a criminal act. Miscarriages might be investigated by zealous prosecutors. Roe v. Wade would not necessarily protect women against these ominous legal controls. Rather, Amendment 48 might be used to challenge that landmark case--or to inspire a nationwide movement for a similar federal constitutional amendment. Despite its draconian effects, this proposed amendment has gathered solid support from Colorado voters. A recent poll shows that 39% favor it, 50% oppose it, and 11% are undecided. Why such strong support? Over the past two decades, the religious right has effectively waged a holy war on abortion. Abortion is the murder of an innocent human life, they say. It violates the God-given right to life of a "preborn child." It is part of a "culture of death." So most Americans regard abortion as morally wrong except when a pregnancy threatens the woman's mental or physical health. Yet the religious right's attacks on abortion are completely and utterly wrong. They evade the true meaning of the biological facts of pregnancy. Opponents of abortion claim that embryos and fetuses have the same right to life as babies because they are distinct, living human beings. Undoubtedly, an embryo or fetus is alive, not inert matter. It's also human--not canine or hippopotamus. Yet every distinct, living skin cell a person washes off in the shower also contains human DNA. A tumor is human tissue distinct from its host. The embryo or fetus is different: it might develop into a born baby. Yet the differences between an embryo or fetus and that born baby are vast. In the early stages of pregnancy, the embryo has nothing in common with an infant except its DNA. Its form is similar to the embryos of other mammals; it cannot survive outside the womb; it lacks any kind of awareness. To call that clump of cells a "person" is sheer nonsense. Even when more developed, the fetus is not a biologically separate entity capable of independent action, like a baby. It exists as part of the woman carrying it, wholly contained within and dependent on her. It goes where she goes, eats what she eats, and breathes what she breathes. It lives as she lives, as an extension of her body. It is not yet an individual human life; it is not yet a person. That situation changes radically at birth. A baby lives a life of its own. Although still very needy, he maintains his own biological functions. He breathes his own air, digests his own food, and moves on his own. He interacts with other people as a creature in his own right, not merely as a part of a pregnant woman. His life must be protected as a matter of right. So a woman has every right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy--for any reason. If an abortion will protect and further her own life and happiness, then she ought to pursue that option with a clear conscience. Amendment 48 would obliterate the moral right of every pregnant woman to control her own body. It is based on sectarian religious dogma, not objective facts. Please vote "No" on 48. Diana Hsieh is the co-author of "Amendment 48 Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters That a Fertilized Egg Is Not a Person," an issue paper available at http://www.seculargovernment.us.I haven't checked the various papers to see where it has been published, but I do know that the Pagosa Daily Post published it on October 23rd. They then published a a lengthy reply on October 27th. (I won't reproduce it here; it's too long and too wrong.) On the 29th, they published a great letter in reply by Gideon Rich of Armchair Intellectual: Van Horn Opinion Misses the Point Gideon Reich Steve Van Horn's rebuttal in the Post to Diana Hsieh's excellent article on abortion shows a complete lack of understanding of the one crucial concept in the abortion debate: Individual Rights. Far from being mythical supernatural endowments implanted at conception, or social conventions subject to popular vote, rights derive from a human being's nature as a rational being. His existence requires the free exercise of his rational faculty to sustain his own life. A "right," as Ayn Rand pointed out, "is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context." Thus, the freedom of action that ought to be guaranteed to an individual is the freedom to think and act without interference from others in society for the achievement of his goals, as long as he respects the right of others do the same. The very first requirement for such a freedom to apply is that the "individual" in question actually be a separate individual in a social context -- not a mere potential that is part of another actual individual. As Ms. Hsieh has eloquently shown, the unborn fetus, to say nothing of the embryo or zygote, has not met that requirement. The pregnant woman, on the other hand, clearly has -- and has every moral right to act accordingly. Thank you for writing such an excellent letter, Gideon! Cross-posted from Metablog

Abortions are private affairs and often involve painfully difficult decisions with life-long consequences. But, tragically, the lives of the parents are completely ignored by the anti-abortionists. Yet that is the essential issue. In any conflict it's the actual, living persons who count, not the mere potential of the embryo. This article was published at Huffington Post on January 23, 2013. Link to original

I went back to excavating the VHS middens, and decided to string together 3 related clips from Rand’s last talk. Her reaction to the question about the Moral Majority is priceless, so even though it’s redundant, it’s in.

Friends, I would like to propose a debate and the subject of abortion. While I recognize this is a "touchy" subject, the source of a lot of pain, frustration, political disagreement and strife, I feel that it is, if done properly, an important issue to Objectivism and western society. I'm seeking someone who shares these views but is pro-choice (I will be arguing from the pro-life perspective so this is kinda a requirement as the debate wouldn't be very helpful if we agreed) and willing to defend their position in a structured, rule-based debate. If you're interested, feel you have a good argument to make, can exhibit "strength without hatred", and are willing to debate the issue, please feel free to PM me and we can work through the structure and rules of the debate format. Sincerely and with much regard, DoxaPar

By [email protected] (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog In affirming a woman's absolute right to abort an unwanted fetus, it seems I have triggered the wrath of the anti-abortion lynch mob if the recent death threats in my inbox are any indication. Such is life when confronting the morally ignorant with their irrationality, yet all their "pro-life" death threats aside, the fact remains: a woman has the unqualified moral right to abort a fetus she carries inside her in accordance with her own judgment. What is the basis for this claim? What facts of reality demand that a woman enjoy the freedom to exercise her discretion in such a manner? At root, it is the simple fact that until the fetus is born and exists as a separate, physically independent human entity, the fetus is potential life and the actual life of the woman grants her interests and wishes primacy. As an acorn is not the same thing as an oak tree, a fetus is not the same thing as an independent human being. In the case of the fetus, its location matters: inside the woman and attached to her via the umbilical cord, its position in relation to the woman subordinates its status to her wishes; outside the woman, welcome to life in the human race. But why is biological independence the defining factor of personhood in both morality and under the law? Why isn't it the moment of conception, or the first instance of fetal heartbeat, or the first instance of fetal brain wave activity (just to name a few of the benchmarks often put forward by anti-abortion activists)? Again, it is the nature of the direct physical connection between the fetus and the mother. Physically attached to a woman in the manner a fetus is, the woman's right to regulate the processes of her own body is controlling. Unattached and physically independent, the fetus is thus transformed; it is a person no different from anyone else and enjoys all the individual rights of personhood. Needless, to say, this truth offends the sensibilities of some. They cannot fathom that something like the physical presence of the fetus inside a woman grants a woman power to control it as she controls the affairs of her own body. In a more just world, such people would simply choose not to have abortions, which is their every right. And leave it at that. Yet justice is not the aim of the anti-abortion mob. They simply seek to sacrifice unwilling women upon their altar of the unborn, reducing a woman to a mere birthing vessel the second a fetus exists in her body. Let us not forget that raising a child is a tremendous commitment. As a life created by its parents, parents owe the children they bring into the world what they need in order to be independent and self-sufficient human beings, to include food, shelter, clothing, and an education. Not every person can measure up to this commitment and not every person wants to. While her fetus in her womb, a woman has every right to reject this obligation. Contrary to the claims of the anti-abortionists, a child should be a choice. And since the morality of aborting fetuses with severe disability was the original topic at bar, let us remember that over 90% of the women faced with such a situation choose to have an abortion. This is not just my decision; it is the independent, un-coerced decision of women acting within their complete and lawful discretion. And while I would not wish to be them, their decision to terminate their unwanted pregnancy is a decision I am more than willing to publicly defend. And as I read the sundry comments and messages of those who choose to oppose me on this issue, I cannot help but notice the utter insincerity in their near-hysterical defense of Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child with Down's syndrome. While I have received many odes to the glory of living life while afflicted with Down's syndrome, I have seen little acknowledgement that the decision to give birth to a severely retarded child is a difficult choice and to choose so entails heroic commitment (or a willingness to dump this obligation upon others and against their will). I have seen little acknowledgement that not everyone decides to have a child such as Palin did. I also see that the many of the objections to my position center upon my framing the issue in the terms of a cost-benefit analysis, as if some choices are somehow exempt from this kind of review. The absurdity of such a claim should be manifest; a nervous groom on his weeding day is performing a cost-benefit analysis, a person standing before the fridge contemplating a midnight snack as they look at their waistline is performing a cost-benefit analysis, and like it or not, a woman confronted with the terrible choice between giving birth to a child with Down's syndrome and having an abortion is performing a cost-benefit analysis. As an advocate for individual liberty, I defend the freedom of each to perform their own analysis and act upon their own good judgment. So yes, a woman has the absolute right to choose to have an abortion, including the right to abort a fetus diagnosed with physical handicap. It is not "eugenics" for a woman to choose as much; the choice to abort is the woman's alone and there is no element of coercion or a racial master plan. Nor is it some form of "euthanasia" to have an abortion, the fetus not being the same as a physically independent human being. The claims that I or any other Objectivists support eugenics or involuntary euthanasia are utterly dishonest; they are lies told to advance the vicious agenda of those who seek to deny half of our species their legitimate and fundamental freedom. Freedom is a peculiar thing. It is the recognition that each person is sovereign over their own lives. It is the recognition that a person has the liberty to make choices that you might not make because their choices concern their own life and not yours. It is the recognition that you do not have the right to coerce another against their will. That a person does not have the right coerce the process of a woman's womb against her will ought to be academic. That it is not is testament to the irrationality and ignorance of our times. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/004078.html

Some time ago I read about a situation where a criminal had assaulted a pregnant woman which caused the child to die. There was some bit of hoopla over whether or not he ought to be tried for murder and assault or just assault. This has always troubled me for a bit and I am looking for some input about the ethics involved. Seems like, if an fetus is not considered a child prior to birth, then that would include the case above, but this doesn't sit well with me. One alternative, the mother's intention to bring the pregnancy to term seems to reduce to a primacy of consciousness issue, while the other, viewing the fetus as a child leads to the illegality of abortion. Any thoughts?

By [email protected] (Nicholas Provenzo) from The Rule of Reason,cross-posted by MetaBlog Like many, I am troubled by the implications of Alaska governor and Republican Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's decision to knowingly give birth to a child disabled with Down syndrome. Given that Palin's decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny. A parent has a moral obligation to provide for his or her children until these children are equipped to provide for themselves. Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others. So while anti-abortion commentators such as Michael Franc of the National Review sees Down syndrome's victims as "ambassadors of God" who "offer us the opportunity to rise to that greatest of all challenges," for many, that opportunity for challenge is little more than a lifetime of endless burden. In this light, it is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent's personal desire to create new life. And most parents seek to create healthy life; in the case of the unborn fetuses shown to have severe developmental disabilities, one study reports that over 90% of these fetuses are aborted prior to birth. But if you notice, the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics. For example, in 2005, as he condemned those who opposed federal legislation that would have attempted to dissuade women carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe disabilities from having abortions, conservative pundit George Will wrote: If it is not unobjectionable, let's identify the objectors, who probably favor the pernicious quest -- today's "respectable" eugenics -- for a disability-free society. So in the anti-abortion advocate's eyes, a parent's desire to raise healthy children by squelching unhealthy fetuses while the are still in the womb is little more than a pernicious quest, but it is not considered a pernicious quest to knowingly bring severely disabled children into this world. On the contrary, such a choice is held out as an great example of upstanding morality. For example, consider this recent press release from a conservative anti-abortion advocacy group which celebrated Plain's birth announcement: The Palin family is a wonderful example of a family who made the right choice to embrace their child and his future. Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America (CWA), commends Governor Palin, saying, "She is even more beautiful inside than out. Her proud and warm announcement of the birth of their special child revealed the depth of love and faith of this extraordinary woman. May God give America more women and statesmen like her. "Special needs children can bring out the best in people. They draw out compassion, patience, a joy for the simple things in life in people around them," says Wright. "In some ways, we need special needs people more than they need us." That is, we need the mentally retarded to teach us how to better sacrifice our lives and divest ourselves of our self-interested ways more than they need us to care for them. At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as "the worship of retardation." Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child's severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/004058.html

By Diana from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Here's a quick letter to my state representatives that I wrote in early February on a proposed bill to restrict abortion by requiring ultrasounds: From: Diana Hsieh <Diana.Hsieh(at)Colorado.edu> Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2008 13:59:56 -0700 Subject: SB 95 Dear Senators, It is my understanding that SB 95 will be heard in the Senate State, Veterans, & Military Affairs Committee on Monday. The bill would require "a physician to provide information regarding an ultrasound to a woman prior to the woman's decision whether to have an abortion." I urge you to oppose this bill. Colorado ought not impose any such restrictions on abortion. The purpose of the bill is not to require genuine informed consent. Every woman who chooses to have an abortion knows that she is destroying a potential (but not actual) human being -- not a shoe, plant, or a hippo. She violates no rights in doing so. She ought not be forced to look at pictures. So the sole purpose of the bill is be to make abortion more costly. It is part of an attempt by foes of abortion to regulate it out of existence, since they cannot ban it out right. All such attempts [are] morally wrong. They ought to be opposed. Diana Hsieh Ph.D Candidate, Philosophy University of Colorado, Boulder Diana.Hsieh(at)Colorado.edu Ari Armstrong has more details in this blog post. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/003341.html

By Diana Hsieh from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog Nick Provenzo's recent post on Palin's Down syndrome child and the right to abortion has been inundated with comments from anti-abortion zealots, thanks to various hysterical distortions from LifeNews, LewRockwell.com, NewsBusters, and more. However, I thought this comment said more than all the insane ravings of his critics: I would like to thank you, Nicholas, for your stand here. As the mother of a child with Down syndrome born prior to Roe v. Wade and before the advent of pre-screening tests, I did not have the choice when it came to giving birth to my daughter. While I loved my daughter deeply (who is now deceased), had I known what I would have faced and had I had the freedom to choose to accept this responsibility or not, I very well might have been with the 90% of women who choose to terminate their pregnancy because of Down syndrome. Those who think that it is vicious to not want to have a child with severe retardation should try raising with one before they pass judgment. It is no easy task; in fact, it is a cruelty made real when you realize that your beloved child can never think like a healthy person, never be independent, or find the love that a person can find when they are in full possession of all their faculties. I spit on all of you here who would morally condemn a woman for rejecting such a fate. I spit on all of you here who would condemn such a choice as murder. You simply have no idea what you are talking about, and it offends me that you prance around as if you do. Walk a mile in my life before you presume to tell me that abortion is wrong. Also, Nick has posted an excellent defense of abortion rights. I don't expect that bit of reasoned argument to slow the rate of death threats against him, however. http://ObjectivismOnline.com/archives/004076.html

By Myrhaf from Myrhaf,cross-posted by MetaBlog The immensely popular conservative blog, Hot Air, put up a link that read, Objectivist writer: It’s very morally important to abort social burdens like Trig Palin. The link is to a post at Newsbusters criticizing this post by Nicholas Provenzo at Rule of Reason. I believe Lew Rockwell also linked to it. The fur is flying in the comments section to Mr. Provenzo's post. I've read the post carefully twice to see what he wrote that is so controversial, but I can find nothing to disagree with. Despite Hot Air's mockery implying that Provenzo is a moron ("very morally"), the piece argues intelligently that it is rational and perfectly moral for a woman to abort a fetus she knows will be defective. The post brings up a major argument by opponents of such abortions: ...the anti-abortion zealots try to attach a dirty little slur to these abortions, labeling them a form of eugenics. For example, in 2005, as he condemned those who opposed federal legislation that would have attempted to dissuade women carrying fetuses diagnosed with severe disabilities from having abortions, conservative pundit George Will wrote: If it is not unobjectionable, let's identify the objectors, who probably favor the pernicious quest -- today's "respectable" eugenics -- for a disability-free society. Eugenics is the opposite of a proper defense of a woman's right to abortion. Eugenics is collectivist. It is the idea that a race must be protected by weeding out the weak and making sure they do not breed. Eugenics holds that individuals must sacrifice for the good of the race. A woman's right to an abortion has nothing to do with the good of any collective; it is only a matter of her individual rights. For her own selfish happiness, she has the right to abort a child that will be mentally retarded. The comments to Provenzo's post, 108 comments long as I write, are mostly a cesspool of mysticism. The anti-abortionists assert, as they always do, that abortion is killing a baby. A fetus is not an actual baby, but a potential one, just as an acorn is not an actual oak tree. I believe it is the idea that God inserts a soul into the fetus at conception that confuses the believers. I didn't notice any liberals attacking Provenzo, which figures, considering where the links came from, and considering that liberals are pro-choice. Those comments confirm my suspicion that America will never be destroyed by the nihilist left, but by conservatives and libertarians who pose as defenders of liberty but are in fact its enemies. View the full article