Search the Community

Ari Armstrong and I published an op-ed on Colorado's Amendment 62 (personhood for zygotes) and Amendment 63 (health care choice) in Friday's Denver Daily News: A62, A63 reveal ideological rifts. Our article observes that many groups either oppose or endorse both Amendments 62 and 63. Yet these measures are based on opposite political premises. Amendment 62 (personhood) violates rights, while Amendment 63 (health care choice) protects them. The article then explains how both the entitlement left and religious right advocate a false view of rights. And it sketches a secular view of rights whereby each person is left free to act by his own judgment and for his own life and happiness. Go read the whole thing! For more information on Amendment 62, see Ari Armstrong's and my policy paper: The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception. For more information on Amendment 63, visit the Independence Institute and Patient Power Now. Also, Paul has been busy advocating free market medicine via FIRM: Freedom and Individual Rights in Medicine. Here's his two most recent endeavors: The October 23, 2010 Denver Post published his op-ed "The 'Right To Health Care Choice'is right for Colorado". (That's also about Amendment 63.) Capitalism Magazine just posted "A Medical Doctor Explains the Pros and Cons of ObamaCare: An Interview with Dr. Paul Hsieh" by Joshua Lipana. Enjoy! Cross-posted from Metablog

http://static.texastribune.org/media/documents/FINAL_2010_STATE_REPUBLICAN_PARTY_PLATFORM.pdf The Republican Party of Texas is very radical. They go as far as to say they want homosexual marriage to be a felony. Texas is fucked. As is their policy on abortions:

Even though I come from a strong Christian background, I've found my relatively rapid "conversion" to Objectivism to be remarkably smooth. Any time that an ingrained, irrational premise or belief was challenged by the tenets Objectivism, I've never had to spend more than a little while puzzling things over before coming to a fully integrated conclusion -- always deciding in Objectivism's favor. However, I seem to have hit a snag. The issue with which I am having so much trouble could be resolved if only I could justifiably answer the following question: at what point along the gradient from two-celled organism (immediately after conception) to fully-grown does a biological human being become a person? In other words, at what point does a human being acquire rights, specifically the right to life? As you have probably guessed, I am struggling with deciding my position on abortion. An embryo is obviously not a rights-bearing person. An embryo cannot perceive its environment, and thus has no consciousness nor a conceptual faculty. Similarly, a newborn baby is obviously a rights-bearing person. But what separates a newborn baby from one who is still inside his mother late in the third trimester? Does the unborn, but comparably developed, baby possess the same rights as the newborn? If so, at what point during developing in the womb does a fetus become a person? If not, why? (Is it simply the fact that he has not yet been born? If so, why does an event that can happen in a fairly wide range of time -- my niece was 3 weeks premature, my nephew a week late -- determine whether a human being has rights?) If man's rights have their origin in his nature as a rational being, as Objectivism says they do, when is human being rational enough to have those rights, to be man? Please understand that I am not approaching this from an anti-rights, anti-life position as so many "pro-lifers" do. I am very much pro-life in the Randian sense. As I said, an embryo obviously doesn't have rights, while a baby does. My concern actually comes from my great esteem for the rights of man: I am troubled that I cannot tell with finality when a human being is a right-bearing person and when they are just a bundle of cells, because that leaves open the possibility that I might condone the destruction of a right-bearer.

What is abortion? Abortion is the termination of a pregnancy by the induced removal of the fetus which results in the death of the fetus. There are two issues raised in abortion debates: Does a fetus have a right to be in a woman’s body against her will? Does the government have the right to restrict reproductive rights to pursue social objectives? Anti-abortionists confuse the potential with the actual A human being is a physically distinct being who survives by the use of reason. Prior to birth, a fetus is to a human being what an apple is to an apple tree, or an egg to a chicken. A fetus may superficially resemble a human being, but it is no more a baby than an embryo inside an egg is a chick - a picture is not an argument. It has the potential to be a human being, but does not become an actual human being until it is born. There is no right to be a parasite Rights derive from the fact that human beings need freedom from the coercion of others in order to live. Two properties are essential for a being to possess rights: physical independence and the capacity for rational thought. “Physical independence” means that a being’s existence is necessarily dependent on the sustenance of another. A fetus is not an independent entity - in order to live, it must drain the resources of the mother – it is literally a parasite until it is born. A newly-born infant is also helpless, but it does not impose a burden on the mother by its very existence - others may choose to provide for it. A parent who chooses to bring an human being into the world accepts an obligation to ensure that it is provided for, but until that choice is made, the fetus has no more right to live of the mother than a thief has to live on other’s wealth. Humans own their own body The most fundamental of rights is the right to one’s own life, which means the right to own one’s body. A woman’s body is not the property of the state or society, to be controlled by majority rule. Just as it would be unjust to violate a woman by raping her, so it is evil to force her to remain pregnant. Pro-rights is the only consistent pro-life, pro-family position “Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child’s proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves ‘right-to-lifers.’ “ — Leonard Peikoff (Objectivism, in the Chapter on Government) Further reading Abortion is Pro Life Abortion: An Absolute Right by the Association for Objective Law Share This View the full post.

First. "Pro-Choice" as it is presented today is incompatible with Objectivism. Bear in mind Rand's quote "A man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none". Now c1990 Avi Nelson was subbing for Gene Byrnes on the WRKO AM 680 midday show and had as a guest either Kate Michaelman or the spokesperson for Mass-Choice. He asked the $64,000 question "Do you think the fetus is alive?" the anser that came back was "We don't want to get involved in philosopy". If you are an Objectivist, need I say more? What makes this significant is that this person was acting as a spokesperson for the Pro-Choice movement. On another front. a leading figure associated with the Right, Bill O'Reilly said, toward the end of his radio career that "You can't say that the embryo is alive because it isn't. But it is a potential life. That's how you fight the abortion crowd". Set the Wayback Machine to 1977, The place: Ford Hall Forum. Ayn Rand said "The embryo is a potential life, not and actual one. The actual takes precedence over the potential..." This is sound Aristotelian philosophy not restricted to Objectivism. Since an actual is real and a potential is not real and since the real takes absolute and total precedence over the non-real, the actual takes absolute and total precedence over the potential. For one thing, as one ptentiality actualized it eliminates the others that compete with it. O'Reilly greaduated from Harvard. This is a remarkable change in positon and he also impaled himself upon Rand's sword at full speed and doesn't seem to have realized it (must not have a nerve in his body; that's GOTTA hurt) or else he's being disingenuous

I am pro-life in the conventional sense of the word -- not in the sense used by Leonard Peikoff in his pro-abortion argument at abortionisprolife.com, but I am not totally resolved on this issue. I know Ayn Rand was strongly pro-abortion rights, as is ARI, and I respect Ayn Rand too much to disregard her opinion on such an important issue. I have listened to Leonard Peikoff's argument linked to above, and it addressed a couple of my questions precisely, but I've yet to be totally convinced. This is my problem: Does abortion=infanticide? What is the difference between a baby and a fetus? 1. Location A baby exists outside of a woman's body, a fetus exists inside. 2. Dependency A baby relies on a woman to a greater extent than does a fetus, though both are ultimately dependent. 3. Age Self-explanatory What is the defining difference that justifies the killing of a fetus and not a baby? A related question is this: does an infant have positive rights to food, shelter, clothing, etc. from his parents? If the answer is yes, it implies all the more that abortion is wrong. If the answer is no, it implies abortion is just.

I found this post criticizing Objectivist arguments for abortion - or at least criticizing the persuasiveness of such arguments - by citing others' criticisms. I tried to formulate my own responses but could not come up with anything convincing. I would be interested to know how others here would respond to the following supposed criticisms: Another cited criticism attempts to use the "potential human being" argument against itself:

There is a lengthy discussion on abortion here. Please direct all general discussion of the issue there. - GC Abortion is one of the issues that people who claim to be Objectivists claim to disagree with Ayn Rand. This survey intends to determine how widespread that position actually is.

Ayn Rand often argued an extreme case for abortion, which ran along these lines: A fetus is--living or not, thinking or not--dependent upon the mother and could not live independently, outside of the mother. Because no being ought to be responsible for another being, the fetus has no rights. However, if no being ought to be responsible for another being, then parents ought not to be responsible for their children. If we are to retain the argument from dependence, then, the premise "No being ought to be responsible for another" needs revision. Either a qualification needs to be placed on which kinds of beings ought to be free from responsibility, a qualification is needed on the kind of responsibility, or a qualification is needed on the kinds of things one is responsible for--or some combination thereof. And then there needs to be a justification for these qualifications.

-Polygamy -Abortion Is there any argument for or against these from an Objectivist point of view? Thanks in advance, Evo

The Supreme Court upheld PBA ban on a 5-4 vote. The replacement of O'Connor by Alito probably tipped the balance. Let those those defending "strict constructionism" as a legal philosophy witness their handywork...

Originally posted by David from Truth, Justice, and the American Way, After South Dakota passed a law banning abortions recently, one clever blogger posted detailed instructions for performing an abortion online. Background here.

A thought experiment - Let's say you have 2 people who agree to raise a child together. After concepetion and during the pregnancy the non pregnant individual works double time to pay for the forcasted expences and to support the mother (preumably on maternity leave). Let's also say that neither are willing to adopt. The mother decides late in the pregnancy to have an abortion - is it moral for her to do so?

[Mod's note: Was split from another thread (link). ] Thanks for the additional insight into 73 Dave. I think I still might have to vote No on it though. While the idea and/or intent is debatable and I see reasons why it could be good for parents to be informed, I do not believe that it's the governments place to force the issue one way or the other. Voting this in only serves to further the fallacy that the government has a say in this issue at all. I agree -- that's why I put "unsure" and dropped it instead of investigating the issue further. *EDIT* Dave...do you have a specific reason for voting "Yes" on 77? Thanks for the feedback.

All, I was discussing abortion with someone who apposes it. Essentially, he agrees with a person having a right to do what whatever they choose with their own body. The hang nail in the discussion had to do with a fetus being a potential and not an actual human being. He replied with, "Not all squares are rectangles, but all rectangles are squares," which translates to not all humans are fetuses, but all fetuses are human. Huh??? At that point I short circuited and ended the discussion. I know that what he said wasn't correct, but I'm having difficulty explaining why. I'm interested in your response to such a statement.

So what right has a judge to flagrantly violate this girl's individual rights? Why did the judge grant such injunction? To find out if she was properly brainwashed regarding her right to choose whether to have a baby or not? This ruling is beyond despicable. Shame on Florida for this flagrant violation of individual rights.