Ben Carson on CNN: Topic Planned Parenthood
I do really appreciate this man temperament and intelligence. This country can do far worse than this level headed, intelligent man for its next President.
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
Don't let the media set the agenda because they have a bias toward big socialist government.
Ignore these inane questions that are a a misdirection and distraction!
If the presidential debates are to move in the direction of government improvement and not get lost in the religious cloud and hatred over abortions, the government, what used to be congress, must decide if abortion is murder and therefore illegal. Not the candidates who have no official stand. Until that time, we are all going to lose the chance to break the socialist/media domination of the discussion. Let the law decide and if enough oppose the law, change it. Wasting precious government time on religious issue has to stop or we will end up like the Muslim countries with violence and hatred controlling all activities . Make the winners swear their oaths of office on the Constitution, not some religious text. I want them, to swear to uphold the Law... not their religion.
Without real penalties for breaking the oaths (e.g., recall and forfeiture of office) there will be little motivation for improvement. The day when the conscience and integrity of the 'public servant' was effective is long gone.
Any support or even admiration for him from me is now gone, although he still may be the brightest and most articulate potential candidate...
His "arguments" in defense of his positions and beliefs were unbelievably weak and thin.
I do not think Carson will survive the GOP hit-squads and make it to the nomination. The shame of it is he is the type of man, intelligent and concise and steadfast in his conviction, that would assemble a brilliant team that could repair this country..of this I have zero doubt.
Banning abortion is a "club", whether used "silently" or not. Abortion is a right: a right is a moral sanction of freedom of action in accordance with once's choice.
There is no "sanctity" of life other than human life and rights. Denouncing use of stem cells for research because of religious sanctity of an intrinsic value of fetal tissue and cells is anti-science whether or not it is rationalized with claims that it isn't 'needed' to get us to believe it doesn't matter. His religious basis does matter. His fundamental criterion is not science, but a religious sanctity. "Speaking softly" while holding his head "level" does not make an argument intelligent.
You get overtly hysterical whenever this subject is brought up and impugn religion in your attempt to beat anyone who opposes your viewpoint over the head with it. If you can't engage in a reasonable debate about the matter without falling to this zealotry, it is YOU who should leave this forum for failing to remain objective - and even more importantly civil.
You are attempting to hijack this thread for your own ideological viewpoint when nothing about it was brought up until you threw your temper tantrum. People disagree with you and they have a very good reason to disagree. Deal with it or invite yourself to leave.
The "ideological viewpoint" of this forum is Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. Your religious proselytizing has no place here at all, let alone demanding that rejecting your religion be regarded as "hijacking". Neither do your personal attacks of "zealotry", "temper tantrum", "beating people over the head", and demands that people who reject your religious attacks against Ayn Rand's philosophy leave belong here.
I am not religious; I bow my head before no superior being; I hold no philosophical positions derived from mandates on high -- and that includes mandates from Ayn Rand. I have borne two children, and I was then, and remain now, convinced that they had a right to my constant care and support in bringing them into the world and supporting them until they were self-sustaining individuals. Once I engaged in conduct, the possible and even likely result of which was pregnancy, I committed myself to the care and protection of the humans whom my conduct might well create [even at a stage in their development that many would term "pre-human"]. I would have used all of my strength and all of my intelligence to defeat any person who would have threatened their existence, whether 7 days or 7 months prior to their birth. I would no more disavow my responsibility in that arena than I would proclaim that I can drive through any red light and hold no responsibility for the ensuing injury or death that might result from my conduct.
What if? is a powerful tool. It can shed light on questions like this, and lead us to question what we formerly thought were unassailable certainties. What if we develop a reliable means of measuring consciousness? or even higher brain function? and then we are able to use that to ascertain the level of brain activity prior to birth? Would that change the argument? What if we were able to demonstrate that the unborn can hear; distinguish the voices of their parents or siblings; develop a preference for rock vs. blues music; have an emotional response to voices raised in argument as opposed to the sound of a lullaby? Is that still just an amalgam of cells whose continued existence is absolutely dependent upon the whims of its mother? What if technology were to make the removal and transplantation of the fetus, at any stage of development, possible. If there were women waiting and eager to receive such a transplant, would reason still allow the conceiving mother the absolute right to terminate that [potential] life, for any reason or for no reason?
I do not see Objectivism as the rational version of the Ten Commandments, carved in stone and forever after complete, static, and unassailable. If even Ayn Rand could state that "one may argue", then I think that there must be room in the Gulch to make that argument, so long as the parties remain committed to reason and {gasp} civility.
To "argue" about later stages of development or anything about any rights requires a basis of the nature and source of rights to know how to explain any additional factors. Those who are on a crusade to ban abortion don't have that and no such discussion is even possible, as can be seen by the kind of militant dogmatism they show here, usually accompanied by faith and mystic intrinsicism.
It is wishful thinking to believe that Ayn Rand condoned attributing rights to a potential or that "medical advances" could change that in any way other than preferred, sensible practices where warranted. "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?"
If the assertion holds that consciousness is not present until some arbitrary point along that developmental path, it is up to you to prove when that "magic" moment happens. So far, even the best science has to offer can neither measure, detect, nor quantify consciousness. Even Rand declared it as a tautology: consciousness is. Without that ability to measure and define there is no way to objectively ascertain the reality of the matter. All we can do is view some of the outcomes of consciousness - but the very essence of consciousness is beyond our understanding. As such, it should be treated with the utmost care and respect, not blatantly ignored on a whim or justified due to inconvenience.
Each and every scientific theory is subject to validation and re-verification. Rand's ideas are no exception, and I seriously doubt that she would attempt to justify her positions based on the fallacy of appeal to authority. I simply and accurately point out the fallacy. You are welcome to ignore it at your own peril.
You seem to have slain a bunch of 'strawmen' created from presumption.
ANY such milestone or hurdle is ONLY achieved by a group of people AGREEING that "this is the hurdle or the milestone" and NOTHING Else!
Why a heartbeat? Why some kind of neural response? Why not "the appearance of toes"???
Can you see the difference between Consensus and Proof? Between Agreement and Science?
That's what this is about, and you and AJ keep running the same stuff, over and over.
YOU Prove To Everyone Exactly When and Why "Life Begins" or "Right To Life is Acquired" and just MAYBE this could be a discussion.
And so far, y'all have not done that, no matter what you claim. Sorry. Socrates would puke on your 'arguments.'
The problem we are confronted with is when to recognize consciousness and the bestowal of rights. You admit that we have no objective way to determine the presence of consciousness and this is my entire point: as an Objectivist, you should be concerned with that reality. That you and many others on this forum are not troubled concerns me greatly, because the whole of the philosophy itself is based on natural rights. If one can manipulate the entire philosophy based on a subjective nature of when those rights are bestowed, it undermines the entire philosophy!
If one can not make an objective determination on a matter, one is left with the subjective - fraught with all its personal biases and decisions based on imperfect information and flawed assumptions. Such is a treacherous path, and one which Objectivism denounces - unless I have read it wrong. That any who call themselves Objectivists would defend the subjectively-based decision seems not only illogical, but rather hypocritical.
No one makes the argument that if it were left to develop normally, that the fetus would not result in a human being replete with consciousness and rights. Instead, the attempt is made to justify the argument of convenience by claiming that humanity isn't present at conception but at some later point in time - all without any evidence! Furthermore, such advocates can not even come to a scientifically-supported consensus on what point in time qualifies! Rand advocated birth, but that point is unsupported by scientific advances. There is nothing about passage through the birth canal to bestow rights as evidenced by the Caesarian sections being so commonly performed in this day. Science confirms that a heartbeat and brainwave patterns are present only a few weeks into development. And science has also determined that the fetus has enough self-awareness to exhibit pain and to try to move away from danger (if fish in a barrel have much room to move). Even according to the biological definition of life, a fertilized egg certainly qualifies. It is bewildering to me that these scientific observations are so casually dismissed when the viability of the entire philosophy hinges on the identification and recognition of consciousness!
I do not have proof. Though I would love to claim otherwise, I can not claim that I have invented a device for ascertaining the presence of consciousness. Thus being put in an unenviable position, I look at the ramifications of each proposed course of action. I see no way Objectivism is harmed (unless Objectivism is really just a front for convenience) by erring on the side of caution. So Rand made a judgement call that turned out to be in error. Not a big deal to me. To hold her as infallible seems ridiculous to me - such is the zealot's argument, not the realist's. I see tremendous harm, however, in the subjective identification of consciousness and rights assignment, as evidenced by Margaret Sanger, Hitler, and many others throughout just our age alone. If rights are universal and inherent as claimed by Objectivism, then the right to life is not subject to utility. It is a binary decision - not an analog one. If, however, one sides with a utilitarian viewpoint on life, one must necessarily accept and endorse the viewpoint that not all life is worth being permitted to live.
You are welcome to draw whatever conclusions about the matter you choose. You can either be persuaded by the argument of convenience, or you can be persuaded by the arguments of observation and rational conclusion.
but...
If neither side can produce a scientifically-justified or provable 'argument' for its side, MAYBE that's really a red herring brought in to confuse the 'discussion' and prolong it, rather than find any consensus of ANY kind that is acceptable to everyone.
I postulate that such an 'acceptable to everyone consensus' is impossible to achieve, so what is the value in continuing to demand one "before we can move forward"?
Yes, other than imminent danger to the fetus' host, pretty much all abortions are 'for convenience,' why does and Objectivist insist that Convenience is NOT a rational choice in the first place?
I liken it to a 'discussion' I tried to have with one guy many decades ago about the hypothetical "a guy accosts you in a dark alley and says, 'I'm going to kill you... would you prefer me to do it with a gun or a knife?' "
My 'opponent' didn't like my position that 'you' in that scenario, Had A Choice... he insisted that there Was No Choice Available Because 'You' Would End Up Dead either way!
I insisted that the 'gun or knife' remained A Choice whether your death was 'inevitable' or not!
Fruitless 'discussion.'
So, if most abortions are for 'convenience,' why is that abhorrent 'because there's not scientific proof...,etc.?'
"If neither side can produce a scientifically-justified or provable 'argument' ..."
Then I submit that we should feel compelled to keep looking until we find one. The implications of the answers to this question are staggering - not only to philosophy but to being. I am wholly unsatisfied with an unanswered question one way or the other, but for a question such as this... It is like the flat earth. I want to set sail and determine the reality of the matter one way or the other. To simply give up is to me anathema. It is for the lazy intellect.
I am not seeking consensus, but reality. The universe doesn't really care what we think about it. ;) I want to know when I began. I want to know the choices that lay before me. I can not properly evaluate my decisions until I can quantify such, and I certainly can not plot a course without knowing where I started, where I want to go, and where I am now.
From the way he answered the question in the video, I think Carson's the one lying.
I know where you're coming from but there is more than a year before the election. Why not used all of this time to get a fuller ideas of the character of each of these people. I don't see how it hurts.
Humanity doesn't appear to be ready for the likes of Dr. Ben Carson. Interesting to see how the CNN commentator changes the subject as Carson shoots him down.
Here is another interview where the interviewer did try to follow up on questions to get him to explain his position and he wouldn't do it. He takes the stance that once he says something there can be no further discussion on topics he doesn't want to talk about, as if questions from a "liberal" are not worthy of a "conservative" taking seriously. That won't work past the religious conservative base in a primary, if he gets even that fare. http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/20...
I've pretty much given up on wondering how a rational, principled person can cloud up their minds with religious fantasy. I like Carson. Compared to most candidates, I find him refreshing, and while he seems very mild-mannered I detect a steely spine under it all. You are right about him to an extent, but ain't none of them perfect. There will have to be compromises on all of the candidates. The question is, what is it that you are willing to compromise on?
When it comes to voting we only have a choice between two candidates between which we can either identify a difference still worth having compared to the worst of them, or not find a difference worth it all. Voting in such circumstances is not a compromise. The situation is forced on us.
Carson does have integrity -- for his own values, but when a "steely spine" is defending destruction through the wrong values it is not good. For all his admirable achievements he does not understand philosophy and much of the political situation.
You kinda didn't specify... :)
:)
:)
But... his 'arguments', although stated calmly and beautifully, still harken back to religious roots which are unprovable, such as 'when does life begin,' which is the foundation for virtually all abortion discussions from conservatives.
And I can not find any rational (Objectivist?) basis for their positions. It's ALL consensus and agreement that 'they're right and everyone else is wrong' followed by "we want the law to say This and That and You To Obey The Laws We Write."
He's a great speaker, very intelligent, learned, educated, but still coming from a religious foundation, and I just can't buy that.
-- my Never-So-Humble Opinion... imnsho.
:)
But that's nothing new for me, either! When a Democrat starts talking "economics" they lose me quickly, too. I find most 'libertarians' to be mostly religious conservatives...
NOTA is my most frequent choice... :(
By not voting, you may be getting either Clinton or Biden or even someone worse (although I can hardly imagine that). Even A.R. voted and even campaigned for a presidential candidate. She realized that FDR, a liberal icon, was terribly bad for the country. His opponent, Dewey, wasn't up to her standards and I'm sure she knew it.
ah, hoping that Some Day....
In my opinion, a great moral deficit occurs in bringing an unwanted child into the world. Unless that child is adopted into an appropriate family, s/he is quite likely to be abused and/or neglected, and oftentimes acts this experience out in substance abuse, crime, illegitimate parenthood themselves, welfare dependency, etc.
Nevertheless, I think that the line should generally be drawn, with limited exceptions, when the fetus becomes viable. And I mean truly viable, which I understand is at about 24 weeks.
Saving a less mature fetus may be heroic, but most will suffer one or more deficits and/or handicaps, which generally are funded by the taxpayer.
Again, we go back to individual responsibility. Either plan responsibly for parenthood and have the means to provide a minimum standard of living for your children, or don't become a parent.
Please note that I do not advocate government enforcement of these ideas.
If abortion wasn't such an easy option, I suspect more care would be taken on the front end, or maybe just saying "no" to getting it on until you have the measures in place may work too...
Should the woman be forced, in effect, to endure nine months of discomfort and pain (facetiously, nine months of cruel and unusual punishment), plus the rigors and risks of childbirth, plus 18 years of involuntary servitude (unless she finds an appropriate adoptive family)?
Reducing this position to its base, apparently a woman should not have sex unless she wishes to become a mother.
If you take that approach, it is the same as condoning drunk driving. Every two minutes someone is involved in a drunk driving accident here in the US (MADD). I would find it difficult to believe that any of these people thought to themselves - I'm going have a few drinks and then try to kill someone with my car on the way home. No, they are simply too preoccupied with the decision at the time to enjoy in a few too many drinks to think about the consequences later. Reality, however, is not subject to whims or desires. Choices have consequences.
I would also point out that the apparent onus here is solely on the female, yet it takes both sexes to induce pregnancy. Responsibility for this is not limited to the female gender alone.
As Ayn Rand put it in "On Living Death"
"And this policy is advocated by the encyclical's supporters in the name of their concern for 'the sanctity of life' and for 'rights'- the rights of the embryo.(!)"
"I suppose that only the psychological mechanism of projection can make it possible for such advocates to accuse their opponents of being 'anti-life'."
"Observe that the men who uphold such a concept as "the rights of an embryo," are the men who deny, negate and violate the rights of a living human being."
"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? The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished."
Leonard Peikoff also explained the principle in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:
"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals—no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man—and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host."
"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'."
This likewise applies to those trying to force women to spend months of pregnancy to bear a child for someone else's adoption, all based on the mystical concept of an intrinsic "right" as an entitlement to be born by an entity (or pre-entity in the early stages) to which the concept of 'rights' does not apply.
Concerning a proposed legislative reform of abortion restrictions, Ayn Rand wrote in 1969:
"There are few political actions today that we can support without supporting a number of dangerous contradictions at the same time. The abortion-law reform is one such action; it is clear-cut, unequivocal and crucially important. It is not a partisan issue in the narrow sense of practical politics. It is a fundamental moral issue of enlightened respect for individual rights versus savagely primitive superstition." -- "A Suggestion", The Objectivist, Feb. 1969,
Where is the right of a doctor to say no, I will not do this procedure. Completely gone. I am surprised she failed to recognize this shortcoming and removal of the doctors right.
Do you define a child as a clump of cells? Or as a fully (or very nearly) fully-formed human being?
Logically, unless a fetus is capable of survival outside the womb, how can it be given human status? Please note that approximately 35% of pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion. Could that possibly be the "will" of "Nature"?
I consider a clump of cells from two human beings that have bound together to begin the formative stage of human development to be the start of life. You don't mix human sperm and human ego and ever get a duck.
There are more than enough birth control options before, during, and after intercourse to rid the world of abortion except in the case of the mothers life at risk. To use abortion as birth control, today, with what we have available, is irresponsible, sinister, and completely opposite of individual accountability.
So based on this argument and others you have made this would be legal.
Baby reaches term, woman is ready to deliver and the baby is about to be born. The doctor sticks a blade in and kills the baby because the woman chooses this.
Are you really OK with that?
I used to think differently until I looked it up.
So to repeat what I was told just a few months ago. Do some fact checking.
My personal position is abortion yes prior to viability then i view the unborn citizen as worthy of protection under the law being unable to protect itself. I also view partial birth abortion as straight up murder.
This whole thread is beating a dead horse as an issue. And no I won't give you the references. it's not rocket science it's a small effort of using google just like the phony balanced budget with a surplus crap.
this posted here not as a general comment to everyone involved who hasn't done their due diligence.
There! I got embarrassed and deservedly so now it's your turn - On a happy note ACLU and the Secular Progressives lost this one big time.
Planned Parenthood should have to exist of the money it can make through charity drives, not a single tax dollar should go to them or any other group. It is an example of the scope of government extending way to far.
Rand similarly ignores that the choice is not whether or not to abort, but whether or not to engage in sex. It is at THAT moment that any potential pregnancy arises - not the choice whether or not to abort the baby. The argument for abortion is a deflection from the true cause and effect.
The serious flaw in Piekoff's argument centers around "potentiality". If one arbitrarily asserts that life only acquires value according to certain criteria - that life is not intrinsically valuable - one has directly affirmed a slippery slope as one's basis for determining consciousness and rights. The problem with such is that it can be used as justification for eugenics, racial cleansing, or the killing of those with deformities just as easily as it can be used as justification for abortion. Margaret Sanger (founder of Planned Parenthood) brought this up and openly praised Adolf Hitler for his program of eugenics. She, too, made no attempt to hide the fact that she strictly favored the government control of all births according to their "suitability" - a subjective measurement if there ever was one. The assertion by both Rand and Piekoff is that somehow they claim the moral authority to ascertain the utility of life - a bold statement indeed given the fact that they have no control over death other than to administer it to others!
At whatever point the baby is a baby it has the same rights as any other person. How do you define the baby as a baby? At birth? That would be the only conclusion from Rand's argument. By that argument it has no rights till first breath. Or is it at conception, or somewhere in between? This is always, no mater what science proves going to be based on belief.
The only correct answer to this issue is for government to get out of it. They should not prevent nor encourage abortion or the performance of the medical procedure.
As a public issue it is moot. This is an individual issue that should never be anything other than an individual issue. The real argument is should government be involved in this issue at all?
I agree with most of Rands philosophy but there are a few places where I think she deviated from the base values she herself provides, the abortion argument is an example of this.
In California you have people charged and convicted for a double homicide where the woman was two months pregnant but yet a woman can kill the baby without being charge with murder. This is the result of approaching the issue as "A woman's right" to abortion.
If abortion is a right then society would have to enforce the ability to exercise that right. One cannot have one of those without the other. That means that she is indeed arguing that a doctor must perform an abortion if the woman wants it done. If the doctor can opt out it is no longer a right, but choice.
The argument that should have been made, and should be made today is that it is a right of the mind to choose for oneself. This would mean that both the doctor and the woman involved have the right to make a choice based on the dictates of there own mind.
This then makes the only argument that can be debated around this: At what point does the baby have a right to the same protection of anyone else? or to make it more specific "At what point does life begin?" Once clearly defined Abortion is either a choice made by those involved based off their personal values or it becomes murder and all laws concerning murder come into play. Note that no law exists under this argument regarding abortion. There is no need to have such a law.
The only state I know of to legally define this is Delaware. They defined it as first breath. In any other state there is no definition of when life begins.
From a science perspective it would be well before first breath. The baby reacts to stimulation independently from the mother and can survive independently from the mother way before this point and this may be used to help define when the baby is a baby legally but is otherwise a mute point.
The only way this issue can ever be settled is to clearly define when a baby is alive and protected by law as any other person. If society thinks that's first breath like Delaware then abortion is not murder when they pull the baby out and instead of slapping its bottom to get the baby screaming they kill it. That baby has not taken a breath and is not protected by law in the state of Delaware.
No court is likely to fully uphold that law as defined. I realize this, it also illustrates just how absurd the argument is for first breath. The point that I made in this post is that its individual choice that needs protecting, that is a right. Abortion can never be clearly defined in a way that will not cause someone to react negatively to the definition. It must be left to the individual to choose. It is another case of government get the hell out of peoples lives.
By the very definition of a "Right" it instills the need to protect that right. If abortion is a right then a doctor must perform that abortion. If you do not agree lets provide the same argument to a property right.
If a person owns a piece of property and has a right to that property then law must enforce that right and protect his/her ability to use that property as they see fit. If this is not protected the right to property is lost.
Abortion cannot be a right and still have a free society. It is in direct conflict with the right of the mind to choose. Specifically the doctors right to choose not to provide the service, which is not a right. It is the wrong stance.
The correct position is to protect the right of agency, the right to choose by the dictates of ones own mind.
The only correct argument around abortion is when does the baby become a baby? I have made other posts the suggest why even this must be left to the individual, but this is the only argument around this subject that can be made at a collective level, the entire rest of the argument is based on individual choice.
When you appeal to the sanctity of anything you have to be able to defend why against those who reject it.
He often "sounds good" with his calmer personality, especially compared with the wild-eyed shouting of most politicians. But he has the same mannerisms even when spouting religious nonsense. Appealing to this interview in particular in the name of "this level headed, intelligent man for [the] next President" makes no sense.
Ayn Rand's moral philosophy explains the nature and source of rights comprehensively. See "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness and in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal. The concept of 'rights' is a moral concept that applies to human persons as moral beings, not anything with the potential to become human or a lower animal. The concept of rights does not apply to the unborn -- whether early cells or a fetus. Rights are not mystical properties "intrinsic" to life, as assigned by religion demanding "sanctity" with no regard for identifying and validating them objectively.
The right of abortion was summarized on this page here: http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...
Explaining the right of abortion and rejecting the "militant, angry, combative" anti-abortionist smears -- of "eugenics", "murder", "infanticide", "taking a human life", "kill children", "truth blurred by the lack-of-accountability murder campaign", "condoning drunk driving", "reduce the surplus population", "death shops", "overtly hysterical" (ironically), "myopic angst", "vitriolic", "irresponsible", "whim", "magic", "sinister", "unaccountable", "hogwash", "rant", "ass", "hijacking", "accusatory", "zealotry", "temper tantrum", "personal crusade", "prophetess" and "canonize the diety [meaning Ayn Rand]", "beating people over the head" -- and demands that supporters of Ayn Rand leave this Ayn Rand forum for rejecting faith in religion should not be "terrifying" to those seeking "rational discussion". Militant religion is not the basis of rational discussion.
This is an Ayn Rand forum for her philosophy of reason and egoism. Religionist "feelings" against abortion are not rational discussion and not a justification for a new version of politically correct dhimmitude. Explaining the moral right of abortion in defense of Ayn Rand's philosophy is integrity and consistency, not "militant" and not "religion". It belongs here. Attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy and those who advocate it do not. They are contrary to the purpose of the forum and the terms for posting here. Please have the common sense to understand that for yourself and drop the sarcastic accusations of "official censorship" towards those who reject the vitriolic stream of smears and misrepresentations against those of us who reject the religious anti-abortion campaign.
Emotional thinking from traditional conservative premises contradicting Ayn Rand's reasoning is not an "interpretation" of Ayn Rand. Attacking her conclusions for not coinciding with traditional conservative religious views is not examination of her ideas. It is not examination or discussion of Ayn Rand's reasoning at all. Ayn Rand cannot be understood in religious terms. She was not a conservative. If you think explanations and quotes from Ayn Rand, indicating what you should read if you want to learn more, are "shoving information down your throat" then you are in the wrong place.
You can do whatever you want to do to come to conclusions on your time. Telling you what Ayn Rand wrote and rejecting your personal misrepresentations is not an improper "methodology". If you find that to be "tiresome and offensive" it is your offensive problem. You picked a fight I want nothing to do with.
Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated abortion to "decrease the surplus population." Your continual failure to recognize her role in this debate is more than annoying. It is a blank out. Go ahead, and report me to those who run the site. I have already told them the same thing. It is a blank out on your part. No other Objectivist on this site who has defended the right to an abortion reasonably has denied what Margaret Sanger said ... except you. With all others who support the right to an abortion, I can respectfully disagree, but not so with you. You have dished it out with the best of them, yet continually condescended even to those who agree with you and taken at least ten times the offense that any other member of the Gulch community has.
Learn the history of China regarding advocacy of abortion to "decrease the surplus population", not to mention many people in the US and worldwide who wanted to reduce the population such as those who funded the Georgia Guidestones.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia...
Population control for the world has long been one of the left's ideological planks.
Equivocating the defense of the right to an abortion as a defense of PP is an assumption that only confuses these issues.
This has been explained to you previously and you continue to ignore it. To continue to connect eugenics with the moral right of abortion, and with Ayn Rand in particular, is false and dishonest. Your personal misrepresentations and militant "go ahead" 'blank out" insults are worse than inappropriate.
The poor guy would be chewed up in the media and frontline politics by those that lay all the relativistic traps honest folk fall prey to. BUT, in the analogy, wouldn't it be cool if he could stand firm and send various frustrated high power politicians to go and shoot themselves?
A nice day dream.
Further, the American people should absolutely be able to say where their money goes and what services and companies it goes to. If they choose not to pay $1/2 billion to them, that is their prerogative.
Have you ever even watched the videos? If you have not, I urge you to do so - if you can stomach them. The fact that they are revolting and repugnant should be a direct clue as to their morality.
There is no "evidence" of crime in excepts of videos of discussions secretly manipulated by activists participating in them in order to manufacture a scandal exploiting later hysterical "interpretations" while ignoring the rest of the videos and actual policy of an organization. This kind of frantic manipulation trying to exploit Federal power to destroy a political target is worse than anything Holder did.
It is entirely appropriate to denounce claimed moral or political "accountability" to religious duties at any time. When religion dominates a culture, it's politics follows.
10th Amendment.
The real question is why one would support the infanticide of 40 million Americans and all of the productivity they could have given.
inˈfan(t)əˌsīd/
noun
1.the crime of killing a child within a year of birth.
2.a person who kills an infant, especially their own child
The only thing that doesn't make it a crime is the letter of the law. "Anti-Rand"...another one.
The real question here, however, is why the government is sponsoring a corporate welfare project - especially one which is arguably violating at least four Federal laws.
There is no "natural law holding final reckoning" against those who have or practice abortions. There is no "natural" law of "consequences" under which a woman is bound to have a child she does not want. That is a religious injunction claiming an intrinsic entitlement for a potential to be born. The "consequences" of abortion for religious conservatives are only government imposed theocratic criminal punishment. That is the "reckoning" you want.
Trying to hide your religious proselytizing by cloaking it behind a rhetoric of "natural law" to pretend not violating the terms and purpose of this forum is not working. It is as dishonest as the religious pretense that Creationism is a science in order to smuggle it into schools.
At what place do you think that the demolition of the cronyist empire should begin? If not, are you going to wait for the collapse as those in AS did? When John and Dagny went back to the world after the collapse, do you not think that looters would pop up again like so many dandelions?
Planned Parenthood had revenues of $1.3 billion, of which > $500 million came from taxpayers in their 2013-2014 annual report. They had > 300,000 abortions (330,000 in their 2008-2009 report). Elsewhere, I found that as of 2008/2009, the average cost of an abortion is nominally $450-500. Hence, we are talking about approximately $150 million in abortion procedures annually. PP states that 3% of their procedures are abortions. That probably is correct. Nominally 12% of their revenue is from abortions, according to my rough calculations. It certainly is not very far off.
Now look near the bottom line. PP had $127.1 million of "excess of revenue over expenses", meaning that we all paid so that PP could take $500+ million from each of us and declare a $127 million profit.
http://plannedparenthood.org/files/67...
Getting rid of corporate welfare is something that should be an easy thing to get people to agree upon. It is not, because most people have their own benefits from the crony empires that keep them in support of the cronyists.
If you want to abort as many fetuses as you and your significant other can procreate, go right ahead, but do not use my money or expect my endorsement.
The morass of subsidies of all kinds is a result of the usual pressure group warfare and will not be eliminated by "getting" Planned Parenthood. But ending subsidies isn't the point of this.
At what place do you think that the demolition of the cronyist empire should begin?
The "cronyist empire" is the result of statist and collectivist philosophy making the corruption possible. The demolition begins with demolishing the statist ideology they live off. Very little can be done by going after the corruption itself. Some of it can be sometimes be derailed, but only temporarily in an otherwise zigzagging net downward spiral. But we do what we can.
Going after Planned Parenthood isn't even primarily a matter of corrupt cronyism. They are primarily cashing in on welfare statism. Shifting their funding in a hysterical attack on abortion is worse than a useless rearranging the deck chairs.
Their reasoning says that the welfare statism is in their self-interest by their logic based on flawed premises. Can moochers be convinced of the flaws in their ideology before their financial lifeline is taken away, or does the financial lifeline have to be taken away first? Are you suggesting that they can be convinced via their minds? If so, do they not have to turn their minds back on from the blank out condition that they are currently in? Moreover, if they have not turned their minds back on when conditions are this bad, how realistic is it that they will turn their minds back on later?
In the meantime we can only rely on the extent to which people are rational, because the whole society has not been reduced to the level of literal savages and people do have some understanding. One of the weakest areas of understanding is the nature of reason and egoism, but to the extent people can understand it and are willing to stand up for their own lives they may fight the worst politically, at least long enough to be able to later make more fundamental improvements. That is what we rely on every time we do anything in politics.
Whether or not that is still possible overall is another question. I tend to doubt it without at least a much greater decline than we have suffered so far. The current shift in emphasis politically from the tea party movement towards religion as a priority is a very bad sign.
2) Regarding the intellectual war, there must be achievable objectives to be defined and not only reached, but eclipsed.
3) You are correct in saying that many or most will not be convinced.
4) Your middle paragraph effectively says that we must be willing to wait to fight the battle on another day. This is reasonable. It was the strategy of George Washington and Sam Houston.
5) For the record, I was one of the handful of Tea Party organizers in my county. We had a very active Tea Party until the party enforcer of our then Republican turned independent eventually turned Democrat governor did one of the dirtiest things in politics I have ever seen.
"Brevard County (Tea Party) Republican Committee Chairman Jason Steele is still on probation for opposing Jim Greer's efforts to get statewide and national endorsements for Gov. Charlie Crist over Marco Rubio for the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Mel Martinez. A state GOP panel in September found Steele guilty of violating the loyalty oath, placed him on probation and allowed him to continue as chair of the local executive committee", but denied him standing on the state committee. Charlie Crist, it may be remembered, was a big reason why John McCain was the GOP nominee. McCain was dead in the water until Crist helped McCain win the nomination in Florida.
http://archive.floridatoday.com/conte...
I wasn't really a Rubio supporter, although at the time, he hadn't said anything to make me reject him (such as his more recent immigration stance or his recent hawkishness). I knew who Crist was. He was RINO personified.
After this whole debacle with the "loyalty oath" to someone who was a RINO turned more liberal than even McCain was the final clincher for me ever supporting the Republican Party again. I may support an individual candidate such as Rand Paul, but never the party.
After the aforementioned incident, a very active Tea Party (regularly 2000 attendees in a community of 100,000 at events) died a quick death.
I am no longer optimistic. If the Tea Party died in a county that is as aligned with its values as my county is, then the Tea Party is definitely dead. When combined with several other things, it was clearly time to shrug.
6) If we are going to wait to fight the battle another day as discussed in 4), how long are we talking about? Even if I'm not dead by that point, I'm probably going to be past the age at which I can truly reap the benefits of waiting. Given Objectivist ethics, such a wait is not worthwhile if it is that long.
Yes, it was me on a t least of few of your more vitriolic and accusatory statements.
Responding to the Carson interview on his religious anti-abortion, anti-science statements did not change the subject. It is the subject.
Eww, Carons has far more authority on the any issue related to health than you or Rand. Again, you move the topic to your favorite rant. There are words I'd love to use toward you but I will refrain from doing so.
Its obvious management will not do anything, you stay here and I'll go. Regards.
"Carons", i.e., Ben Carson, was interviewed on his opposition to abortion and scientific use of fetal tissue and stem cells. That is the topic. You introduced it when you linked to the interview. The topic was not changed to a "favorite rant".
Your calling him "level headed and intelligent" does not lock in a false premise that his religious-based views are correct. His medical expertise does not justify his religion or his premise that his religion should limit the use and pursuit of scientific knowledge in this realm. Citing a doctor with an otherwise admirable career and character does not in the name of "any issue related to health" refute Ayn Rand's support of the right of abortion and scientific inquiry opposed by religion.
Is the goal to shut down Planned Parenthood as an abortion provider? Absolutely. If you want to decry some hidden agenda, go decry Margaret Sanger - the Founder - and her eugenicist policies! Go decry her open statements praising Hitler and the Ku Klux Klan! Go decry her open statements admitting that her goal was to eradicate blacks! Go decry her goals to see that every baby ever born was subject first to approval by the Federal government!
Again - if you haven't watched the videos, go do it. Until you have, you have no more standing in this conversation.
1930s Sanger rhetoric on eugenics has nothing to do with the right of abortion. You know very well that this is a matter of individual rights, not eugencis. This has been refuted previously and your continued smears as an excuse to shut down abortion are dishonest and disgusting.
Hysterical political campaigns are no challenge at all to principles we know to be true. Images of fetuses claimed to be "babies" are not a refutation of the woman's right to her own body and are no "challenge" to anything -- except for those who think emotionally in pictures. "A word is worth a thousand pictures" for those who think conceptually. Whether or not any individual at Planned Parenthood is ever found to be guilty of some legal infraction has absolutely nothing to do with the hysterical attempts to link abortion rights to "murder" and "eugenics".
Carson: "I thought that they were supposed to get all those things based on Obamacare."
Zing!
PS - There isn't a PP clinic in the nation who offers mammograms. They refer those out.