Abortion: Ayn Rand Lexicon

Ayn Rand Lexicon ^ | Ayn Rand

[SoFloFreeper]

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

[SoFloFreeper]

The Ayn Rand Lexicon...is a compilation of key statements from Ayn Rand (and from a few other authorized Objectivist texts) on several hundred alphabetized topics in philosophy and related fields. The book was initially conceived by Harry Binswanger, who undertook it during Miss Rand’s lifetime with her permission and approval.

I offer this quote (there are several others at the Lexicon) to show that those of us in the conservative movement ought to carefully respect our leading intellectual lights and political leaders, but not demand perfection from them.

Plenty of people, like me, respect Rand for her views on capitalism and the need freedom and liberty in the economic realm--but believe her atheism and her views on morality are exceedingly inadequate.

I enjoyed very much the "Atlas Shrugged" film and book (though I couldn't finish it!)...but Ayn was, in many ways, anathema to the deepest held beliefs of God fearing and Constitution loving Americans.

None of us are perfect, there was only One who was...and he rose again on the third day. :)

[sthguard]

This is also why objectivists/libertarians (is there really a difference?) are not conservatives. Liberty without limits is just vice in drag.

[Gay State Conservative]

...but believe her atheism and her views on morality are exceedingly inadequate.

I think I'd use language a good deal stronger than that.

[fullchroma]

Well this is disappointing. Good post. You make an important point, SoFlo.

[JRandomFreeper]

She was wrong. Dead wrong. Unborn children are living humans. Down to their very DNA.

One of the few places where I disagree with her.

/johnny

[SoFloFreeper]

...my point expands to a fuller range of thought. I hope it is understood by many of my fellow FREEPers.

[fullchroma]

So do I.

[Misterioso]

Ayn Rand explicitly disavowed conservatives and libertarians. But you knew that, right?

[donna]

One of my basic requirements to respect a person is that she not be a baby killer nor encourage others to be a baby killer.

[Misterioso]

Is that the first hurdle that your friends had to clear? The second? The third? Does it apply to men friends?

[Billthedrill]

The difficulty with that statement is that it does not live up to the evidential requirements in Rand's own Objectivism, whose criteria disallow that sort of arbitrary judgment. "Life doesn't begin until birth"...because of what? Because she doesn't think so? Not good enough, Ayn - those were the very criteria that led you to conclude that the existence of God was unproven. Things aren't true just because you want them to be.

To be fair, I'm not sure she'd be quite so certain, had she lived to see the mountain of contraindicative evidence that has surfaced since then in the form of foetal EKGs, ultrasound graphics, general medical science. At that point I'd have to turn her own catchphrase back on her, "check your premises."

[sthguard]

I did not, but it doesn’t surprise me.

[Salgak]

I could live with abortion being the “sole discretion of the woman” . . . PROVIDED she also has the sole responsibility for her choice.

But since she can make the “choice”, and STILL dun the father for 18 years of child support: that’s authority without the co-concomitant responsibility. . .and thus unacceptable.

And that’s before we even get into the rights of the child. . . .

[PieterCasparzen]

Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

IMHO, this is a way for Christian conservatives to approach conservatives who are new-agey, atheist, etc., and begin to show them that Christians are not "flat-earthers".

The simple physical fact is that the body of the unborn child is at no time the mother's body.

Every cell of the mother's body has her DNA. DNA being unique to an individual is quite generally accepted by the scientific and the legal fields.

Every cell of an unborn child, however, has the child's DNA.

The DNA of a child is different from that of both the child's mother and father.

This is consistent with the idea that a mother is providing a safe and nurturing environment for her child while she carries the child in her womb, and the child is helpless and dependent on their mother for this safety and nurturing. In now way can an unborn child's body be construed to be merely a part of the mother's body that will only become it's own person after it is born. An unborn child is it's own person from the moment of conception, when it has it's own DNA distinct from that of both it's father and mother.

Truthful scientific study continues to bear out the truth of Scripture.

[Persevero]

Interesting of course, I am no Rand fan. But her much ballyhooed “logic” is not so great.

Witness the screed about, the baby is called the function of her own body. Forgetting the father. Women don’t produce a baby on their own. The baby is a result of the function of a woman’s AND a man’s body.

Conveniently not mentioned.

[Pete from Shawnee Mission]

Agreed; the legal system uses differences in DNA, in gentic markers to establish identity and place someone at a crime scene. Since the unborn child has a diffent DNA than the mother it must be a distinct being, not a part of the mother.

In addition, the child will often have a diffrent blood type, in about half of pregnancies a diffrent gender, and of course, a diffrent nervous system. (An important point that should often be made.) It is of course absurd to talk about a woman who becomes pregnant and now has four arms and legs and two heads and genders because the child is, after all, just part of her body.....

[Persevero]

“And that’s before we even get into the rights of the child. . . .”

And the rights of the father. It is his child, too.

[RedMDer]

All contributions are for the Current Quarter Expenses.


Every time a Freeper or Lurker signs up to be a New Monthly Donor

A generous Freeper donates $10!!

Please sign up now!

[pallis]

If given a choice of betting on a competitive pro football game, played between too teams according to the rules and refs of the game, or a call your own fouls game with no refs, I’ll go with the former. The latter, combined with upfront mandates, and backside bailouts is what gave us the housing debacle. I have great respect for Ayn Rand, but it only goes so far. I’ll take the principles of life, liberty and justice expressed through Christian values over a free for all.

[Salgak]

That was my point. . .