Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Why Objectivism is culturally backward.

Rate this topic


Kate87

Recommended Posts

Given than Rand did not vote for Reagan because of his views on abortion, at very least the topic of the thread should be "Why *Objectivists* are..."

Of course, it still would be true of most Objectivists. It is completely true of GOP supporters and who want all abortions banned regardless of term and cause, and who support "personhood laws". By a large majority, Objectivists support the results of Roe v. Wade's and would not like it overturned. I know many Objectivists factor this into their voting decisions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think that's true. Obama sometimes talks centrism to certain audiences, but I think ultimately, he'd prefer complete government ownership and control of everything.

Obama supports a mixed economy, not communism.

Hmmm…. Let’s see. Do I vote for the man who wanted to control one kind of medical procedure, or do I vote for the man who already has indicated he wants the government to control ALL medical procedures and has signed into law the process of forcing people into that kind of system.

Obamacare and Romney’s MA healthcare plan were identical.

Kate, you're from the UK, correct?

The American separation of powers doesn't allow for one president - even a president and congress combined - to simply outlaw abortion. Romney could appoint anti-choice justices to the Supreme Court, but that's about as much power as a president has in regards to abortion.

Yes, I’m English - I do understand how the American system works though. The idea that the president has no power over abortion issues is sweeping an uncomfortable political issue under the rug.

Your really don't see anything wrong with this sentence? Are you really that wrapped up in your fanaticism?

My sentence was: “Anyone who chooses to shackle women over paying higher taxes is a backward monster.”

It comes to the crux of the issue. A lot of Objectivists here seem to think that paying say 10% more in taxes (not going to happen under Obama but for the sake of argument we’ll stick to 10%), is just as bad as being forced to have a child. It’s not just as bad – control over your own body is a more basic right than control of your income. It’s a cultural issue because I bet if a politician proposed taking control of your testicles you would instantly see the point.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do appreciate by the way that many of you had a more nuanced reasoning to your voting. Also, that many of you did in fact vote for Obama. So the only people I have beef with are the die hard "Obama was much worse than Romney" people. This is the attitude that is culturally backward, and it's a pity that a lot of Objectivist's seem to hold it.

Edited by Kate87
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do appreciate by the way that many of you had a more nuanced reasoning to your voting. Also, that many of you did in fact vote for Obama. So the only people I have beef with are the die hard "Obama was much worse than Romney" people. This is the attitude that is culturally backward, and it's a pity that a lot of Objectivist's seem to hold it.

You do see that for a large portion of the time since Roe V Wade, the very people you say will end abortion, and by that I hope you mean the actual surgical procedures coupled with the such pharma methods as 'the day after pill', or contraception for that matter, have held the White House and practically nothing has happened to curtail the enjoyment of those rights, yes?

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It comes to the crux of the issue. A lot of Objectivists here seem to think that paying say 10% more in taxes (not going to happen under Obama but for the sake of argument we’ll stick to 10%), is just as bad as being forced to have a child. It’s not just as bad – control over your own body is a more basic right than control of your income. It’s a cultural issue because I bet if a politician proposed taking control of your testicles you would instantly see the point.

Yes, of course women have a right to their own bodies, but they don't have a 'right to an abortion.' An abortion is a medical procedure just like any other, and if you want it, you need to pay for it. It's crazy that the government is funding abortions both domestically and internationally (although to their credit, they only allow it in specific cases). I think the most Romney would have done is try to cut government funding for that altogether.. which would have been a good thing. Overturning Roe v. Wade is not realistic (or moral), but cutting off government funds that go towards providing abortions is.

Edited by mdegges
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Has anyone on this thread seen the studies that suggest that women who experience fewer menstrual cycles have a greater statisical chance of not developing certain cancers?

I would refer you to , perhaps at most an anecdotally compiled study, cited by Malcolm Gladwell in his compilation book "What the Dog Saw"

Gladwell is a contributor to The New Yorker, he published a book recently that compiled a series of his essays he wrote for that publication. I was struck by what he wrote about a study of I think was a fairly reputable study of African women and their lifestyle as it concerns child rearing. And how oral contraception for females in western societies may tend to be a health issue as well as a contraceptive issue. I recommend looking into the piece.

Edited by tadmjones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Swerve of Shore, on 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

these bullet points are factually wrong.

Which part, exactly?

snapback.pngSwerve of Shore, on 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

  • Regulate medicaid. Medicare/Medicaid don't provide abortions due to long-standing Republican opposition. Anyway, this bullet is a little odd since, as I understand it, Objectivists are against Medicare/Medicaid altogether..

My point was not to say 'this is the objectivist position on these issues' - it was to outline the power that the president actually has in regards to abortion.

Fact: "Last year the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of the Texas law, affirming that the state could withhold funding from Planned Parenthood. “Since then, the Obama Administration has withheld federal Medicaid dollars from the state until it agrees to restore Planned Parenthood’s funding,” reported Focus on the Family's CitizenLink.com. “The case is again making its way through the federal court system, as is Indiana’s.”" [1]

Fact: "Today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its opinion in Planned Parenthood of Indiana v. Commissioner of the Indiana State Department of Health, ruling that a 2011 Indiana state law (Ind. Code 5-22-17-5.5) banning “abortion providers from receiving any state-administered funds, even if the money is earmarked for [services other than abortion]” is unconstitutional." [2]

snapback.pngSwerve of Shore, on 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

  • Affect funding for nonprofits that provide abortions overseas. Obama did not start this practice. Again it was Republican legislators who started it long ago. Obama has not had the power to overturn it.

Fact: "President Obama signed an executive order today reversing the ban that prohibits funding to international family planning groups that provide abortions." (The ban was originally put in place by Reagan.) [3]

snapback.pngSwerve of Shore, on 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

  • Pass federal abortion regulations (like the partial birth abortion ban act). If I'm not mistaking, Romney supported the so-called partial birth abortion ban (and Obama did not). As to whether Romney would support/sign further regulations, yes, he probably would have. He has expressed support for Personhood begins at Conception legislation.

Yes, Obama was against that act. As for Romney, he recently said that "“There’s no legislation with regards to abortion that I’m familiar with that would become part of my agenda,” Romney said, according to the paper." [4] I have no idea if he would stick to that decision or not.

snapback.pngSwerve of Shore, on 13 November 2012 - 05:57 PM, said:

  • Appoint supreme court justices. This is the most important point. Actually, if he can appoint 1 or 2 new justices, Romney probably could tip the balance (if the Senate doesn't stop him) and he certainly would try to. Supreme Court justices make it a policy not to discuss how they will handle future cases, so you can't go by their public statements. The best you can do is read the tea leaves. In addition to Scalia and Thomas, it is extremely likely Alito would vote to overturn Roe. Roberts is more of a wild card ... as his Obamacare decision proved. So, one appointment might be able to overturn Roe, but two almost certainly would.

That is debatable. (Edit: Personally, I don't think he has it in him.)

Bullet one: Again, Medicaid does not provide funds for abortion, period ... due to GOP-passed laws. So, by withholding Medicaid funds, Obama is not withholding abortion funds. The issue in your citations has to do with Medicaid funding of non-abortion services provided by Planned Parenthood (PP), so they are irrelevant.

Bullet two: I am very pleased to learn that Obama reversed the ban that was put in place under Reagan. This means that foreign PP-like agencies can now receive federal funds for non-abortion services even if they also provide abortions. Again, this is basically irrelevant since there is no funding of abortion involved, but - if you take the view that it frees up funds the agencies can now use for abortions - Obama's actions are pro-abortion rights. It was Reagan's policy that was anti-abortion.

Bullet three: Romney's quote about anti-abortion legislation not being in his agenda is one of the many cases of Romney saying what he thinks his audience wants to hear even if it is a lie. Among other things, Romney has supported "fetal pain" legislation. See http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/politics-elections/261155-romney-abortion-legislation-not-part-of-my-agenda.

Bullet four: Thankfully, it is a moot question whether Romney has it in him to appoint justices that would overturn Roe since he did not get elected. On this point, we can agree to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s a cultural issue because I bet if a politician proposed taking control of your testicles you would instantly see the point.

I still don't see a point anywhere, but if someone's offering to be in charge of my testicles, I definitely want to know more.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obamacare and Romney’s MA healthcare plan were identical.

Context is fun. Republican supporters in Massachusetts that voted for the law he signed and he needed to have for political support is far different then that national Republicans that have already voted to repeal the law 19 times and whose support he would have needed to govern nationally.

It’s a cultural issue because I bet if a politician proposed taking control of your testicles you would instantly see the point.

Only less so than the politician who wants to control my testicles and every other part of my body by controlling every aspect of my health care. Obviouly he is far worse. I’m sure you see my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Context is fun. Republican supporters in Massachusetts that voted for the law he signed and he needed to have for political support is far different then that national Republicans that have already voted to repeal the law 19 times and whose support he would have needed to govern nationally.

How is it different, then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it different, then?

You don’t know the difference between East Coast Taxachusetts styled liberal Republicans that support Central Planned Health Care and the national House Republicans that voted to terminate Obamacare 19 times in the last two years? Or the difference in how Romney will vote to keep his support base under those circumstances?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is Romneycare different than Obamacare? I asked this in another thread, I never got a satisfying answer.

First off, it's not Romneycare and Obamacare. The Mass plan was initially proposed by Romney, under pressure from a broad coalition of legislators, and to prevent a a ballot item that would've forced a more expensive plan to be implemented. Through the legislature, his plan was heavily amended, including with penalties for employers who don't provide "enough" insurance to their workers. Then Romney signed a much different version from his original plan into law. Again, under the threat of a popular ballot measure that would've been more expensive (and also to keep federal subsidies that were reimbursing the treatment of uninsured by hospitals). It was a pragmatic move, not an ideologically motivated one.

The national plan was written by House Democrats in consultation with the White House, as a lesser version of a more damaging initial plan that would've been filibustered by Republicans. This plan would've also been filibustered by Republicans, had they had that power. It was an ideologically motivated law, that would've been even worse if the Democrats were left to their own devices.

The suggestion that similarities in the two legislations prove that the future intentions of Obama and Romney are equally similar is illogical. Your argument is a pretty blatant application of thinking by association rather than logic.

Edited by Nicky
Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is Romneycare different than Obamacare? I asked this in another thread, I never got a satisfying answer.

That is not the point.

The point is that “Romneycare” is a bill that the legislature sent him and he signed based on the politics of Massachusetts needed to secure his power base. The vote to terminate “Obamacare” as the House Republicans have done 19 times already is a bill that in some form would reach Romney and he would sign based on national politics that he would need to do to secure his power base.

Obama’s political base insures that Obamacae stays and will likely be expanded. Romney’s base wants it gone, have voted for it to be gone, and would have given Romney legislation that moved in that direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea that the president has no power over abortion issues is sweeping an uncomfortable political issue under the rug.

I didn't mean to avoid the issue. Your moral condemnation was very severe; I admit that I thought it stemmed from a misunderstanding of our system, so I mentioned what I thought was just enough to put the issue in perspective. Now that I understand you know more, I think your condemnation is way out of line.

If it were the case that a president Romney had the will and capability to implement Irish-style abortion bans, I would share your outrage. But the fact is that we had a candidate who posed a long-term, uncertain threat to abortion rights versus a president who is currently undermining abortion rights from the other side. The "employer mandate" penalizes companies who, for moral reasons, choose not to offer health plans that cover abortions. The only position on abortion that upholds individual rights looks like this: Women should have the right to contract with doctors who choose to offer abortions, and others should be free to withhold their support from medical procedures that they find morally repugnant. And like I said, this issue shouldn't be taken out of the wider political context.

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...