Of Living Death

“In this lecture examining the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), Ayn Rand discusses the meaning of the Catholic Church’s admonition against the use of contraception and the view of sex that it implies. She contrasts this religious perspective on sex with the Objectivist view, drawing out the relationships between love, sex, self-esteem and happiness.”

“A version of this talk was originally delivered live at the Ford Hall Forum on December 8, 1968. An edited version of this talk is available in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, a collection of essays by Rand and others. This recording is 56 minutes long.”

Made available by The Ayn Rand Institute.

Ohio Abortion Ban: Involuntary Servitude Applied to Parenthood

BY DR MICHAEL HURD

Ohio lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would ban abortions sought because the baby has Down syndrome, placing the swing state at the center of a new battle for anti-abortion advocates.

“What does that say of us as a society if we make decisions about who lives or who dies dependent on if they are going to be an inconvenience, or they are [costing] too much money for health care costs?” Ohio Right to Life President Michael Gonidakis told FoxNews.com. “Someday we are going to find a genetic marker for autism. Are we going to have a 90 percent abortion rate for people with autism? I hope not.” [foxnews.com 8/24/15]

Here’s my question: What does it say about us as a society if some people use the force of government to impose the life of raising a child with Down Syndrome on unwilling victims, i.e. parents?

I realize that some will say, “Life begins at conception. Therefore, you must respect all life, Down Syndrome, or not.”

I could not disagree more that life begins at conception. Life begins when life begins — at the moment of birth. Prior to birth, or at least prior to viability, a fetus is — by its very nature — an extension of the body of the pregnant woman. It’s a potential life, or a life in the making, but not a life in the actual, objective sense.

Anti-abortion laws are based on two assumptions.

One, the entirely faith-based belief that God inserts the divinity of life into a fetus at conception; this is entirely faith-based, and has no relevance to a secular Constitution based on separation of church and state.

Two, the biological claim that a non-viable fetus is just as much a biological life as a newborn infant. But there’s an essential difference between the two. The non-viable fetus cannot function yet — biologically — as a life, apart from or outside of the mother’s body. The infant obviously can. You cannot ignore such a crucial distinction; you cannot evade the difference between a potential life and an actual, self-sustaining (biologically speaking) life.

I am impervious to the arguments by threat, emotion, or intimidation. I am impervious to arguments with pictures or videos of out-of-context body parts or blood stains, because pictures and videos are not, in and of themselves, stand-alone substitutes for rational arguments. I am not writing this article right now to persuade anyone who feels abortion is murder to change their minds, because I know that nothing will do that.

It’s perfectly fine for people to believe whatever they wish to believe. For example, one is free to believe in life after death. But we do not pass laws involving the activities of people in that “life” after death. That would be absurd. Others believe in reincarnation. But we don’t pass laws referring to actions that you allegedly took against me, or I against you, when we each inhabited different bodies in different “lives.” That would be insanity. (Given how things are going, we might be closer to proposals for such laws than you think.)

There’s a reason why we celebrate our birthdays on the date of our births, and not the date of our conceptions. It’s because we all plainly know that our lives began on the date of our births — not nine months earlier.

People are free to believe what they wish about souls (i.e., one’s consciousness) detached from the body, not only before birth or after death, but at any other time. But in a free society, we don’t codify those exclusively faith-based beliefs into law. Not unless it’s a religious dictatorship, or some other kind of dictatorship.

If you discover only after birth that your child has Down Syndrome, or any other illness, you have no right to kill that child. However, if technology gets us to the point where you can know about this tragic development prior to birth, early on in the pregnancy no less, then no moral government would ever force its citizens to bring such pregnancies to term.

I consider this a new low.

We’re rapidly becoming a society of “brother’s keepers.” More and more, the government decides that everyone must be cared for, protected and nurtured at others’ expense. One price of such a society is that the government that makes the commitment to caring for everyone will eventually control the activities, behaviors and choices of everyone.

The legislation is unique [foxnews.com reports], though not unprecedented. North Dakota passed a similar measure in 2013 that banned abortions motivated by the sex of the baby; a diagnosis for a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome; or the potential for a genetic abnormality.

Notice that governments (state level, for the moment) now feel empowered to decide the preferences of their child’s gender. So far, it’s only in the negative. “You have no right to terminate your pregnancy based on gender.” How long before government gets to decide how many children you have, when you have them, or in what order of gender you must have them? In principle, there’s nothing to stop this, once you start down the path North Dakota has already gone, and Ohio seems poised to go down now.

Whether religious or otherwise, “left wing” or “right wing,” authoritarian and totalitarian governments always rely on the same thing: the creed of self-sacrifice. Even more than most anti-abortion laws, these North Dakota and Ohio forms of legislation advocate the imposition of sacrifice as an end in itself — primarily because it’s a sacrifice, the laws imply, it should be imposed on people for that reason. It’s involuntary servitude, applied to parenthood.

Forcing people to be parents of a mentally or physically disabled child whether they wish to be, or not, is one of the most ruthless, sadistic and mind-numbing forms of totalitarianism possible. Stop saying, “It can’t happen in America.” It’s already starting.

Ohio Abortion Ban: Involuntary Servitude Applied to Parents

BY MICHAEL J. HURD

Ohio lawmakers are considering a controversial bill that would ban abortions sought because the baby has Down syndrome, placing the swing state at the center of a new battle for anti-abortion advocates.

“What does that say of us as a society if we make decisions about who lives or who dies dependent on if they are going to be an inconvenience, or they are [costing] too much money for health care costs?” Ohio Right to Life President Michael Gonidakis told FoxNews.com. “Someday we are going to find a genetic marker for autism. Are we going to have a 90 percent abortion rate for people with autism? I hope not.” [foxnews.com 8/24/15]

Here’s my question: What does it say about us as a society if some people use the force of government to impose the life of raising a child with Down Syndrome on unwilling victims, i.e. parents?

I realize that some will say, “Life begins at conception. Therefore, you must respect all life, Down Syndrome, or not.”

I could not disagree more that life begins at conception. Life begins when life begins — at the moment of birth. Prior to birth, or at least prior to viability, a fetus is — by its very nature — an extension of the body of the pregnant woman. It’s a potential life, or a life in the making, but not a life in the actual, objective sense.

Anti-abortion laws are based on two assumptions.

One, the entirely faith-based belief that God inserts the divinity of life into a fetus at conception; this is entirely faith-based, and has no relevance to a secular Constitution based on separation of church and state.

Two, the biological claim that a non-viable fetus is just as much a biological life as a newborn infant. But there’s an essential difference between the two. The non-viable fetus cannot function yet — biologically — as a life, apart from or outside of the mother’s body. The infant obviously can. You cannot ignore such a crucial distinction; you cannot evade the difference between a potential life and an actual, self-sustaining (biologically speaking) life.

I am impervious to the arguments by threat, emotion, or intimidation. I am impervious to arguments with pictures or videos of out-of-context body parts or blood stains, because pictures and videos are not, in and of themselves, stand-alone substitutes for rational arguments. I am not writing this article right now to persuade anyone who feels abortion is murder to change their minds, because I know that nothing will do that.

It’s perfectly fine for people to believe whatever they wish to believe. For example, one is free to believe in life after death. But we do not pass laws involving the activities of people in that “life” after death. That would be absurd. Others believe in reincarnation. But we don’t pass laws referring to actions that you allegedly took against me, or I against you, when we each inhabited different bodies in different “lives.” That would be insanity. (Given how things are going, we might be closer to proposals for such laws than you think.)

There’s a reason why we celebrate our birthdays on the date of our births, and not the date of our conceptions. It’s because we all plainly know that our lives began on the date of our births — not nine months earlier.

People are free to believe what they wish about souls (i.e., one’s consciousness) detached from the body, not only before birth or after death, but at any other time. But in a free society, we don’t codify those exclusively faith-based beliefs into law. Not unless it’s a religious dictatorship, or some other kind of dictatorship.

If you discover only after birth that your child has Down Syndrome, or any other illness, you have no right to kill that child. However, if technology gets us to the point where you can know about this tragic development prior to birth, early on in the pregnancy no less, then no moral government would ever force its citizens to bring such pregnancies to term.

I consider this a new low.

We’re rapidly becoming a society of “brother’s keepers.” More and more, the government decides that everyone must be cared for, protected and nurtured at others’ expense. One price of such a society is that the government that makes the commitment to caring for everyone will eventually control the activities, behaviors and choices of everyone.

The legislation is unique [foxnews.com reports], though not unprecedented. North Dakota passed a similar measure in 2013 that banned abortions motivated by the sex of the baby; a diagnosis for a genetic abnormality such as Down syndrome; or the potential for a genetic abnormality.

Notice that governments (state level, for the moment) now feel empowered to decide the preferences of their child’s gender. So far, it’s only in the negative. “You have no right to terminate your pregnancy based on gender.” How long before government gets to decide how many children you have, when you have them, or in what order of gender you must have them? In principle, there’s nothing to stop this, once you start down the path North Dakota has already gone, and Ohio seems poised to go down now.

Whether religious or otherwise, “left wing” or “right wing,” authoritarian and totalitarian governments always rely on the same thing: the creed of self-sacrifice. Even more than most anti-abortion laws, these North Dakota and Ohio forms of legislation advocate the imposition of sacrifice as an end in itself — primarily because it’s a sacrifice, the laws imply, it should be imposed on people for that reason. It’s involuntary servitude, applied to parenthood.

Forcing people to be parents of a mentally or physically disabled child whether they wish to be, or not, is one of the most ruthless, sadistic and mind-numbing forms of totalitarianism possible. Stop saying, “It can’t happen in America.” It’s already starting.

Abortion In Case of Rape is An Argument

Writes Daniel Greenfield:

“Rape and incest is [sic] violence perpetuated against an innocent victim, which of course is also true for abortion since unborn children are innocent but have the ultimate act of violence perpetuated against them.”[Why Abortion in Case of Rape is a Non-Argument]

In response, Edward Cline easily disposes of Daniel Greenfield’s non-argument against abortion:

First, the term “unborn children” is an oxymoron. It is an invalid concept. There are fetuses, which in the first two trimesters, cannot be called “children” because they are not only unconscious, but cannot sustain their own lives once out of the womb. They are the equivalent of appendages in a woman’s body. As an arm or a hand cannot sustain itself without a body, neither can a fetus.

Secondly, abortions are justified in cases of rape and involuntary or forced incest (because not all instances of incest are involuntary) because the victim of a rape owns her own body and it has been expropriated by a rapist. She is left with the unwanted and unjust consequences of that initiation of force on her person. She has a right to dispose of it. Victims of rape do that fairly quickly, and don’t wait until the third trimester or at the 11th hour.

Thirdly, the term “innocent victim” is a redundant term. Being a victim implies innocence. I do get tired of that old sawhorse.

Lastly, being pro-abortion doesn’t necessarily mean one is a leftist trying to pull the wool over anyone’s eyes. I get tired of that argument, too, because it’s so hackneyed and is the usual tactic of “rightists” searching for another crime committed by the left. The left is guilty of a Sears catalogue of crimes, and the last thing they would ever uphold or champion is the individual right of a woman to own her own body. They don’t, and this is a policy or idea shared by left and right.

Texas Democrat Attempts To Restrict Abortion in Texas

New Bill Could Require Texas Women to Take Adoption Class Before Getting Abortion: Austinist

[…] Democrat and Texas State Senator Eddie Lucio from Brownsville has filed a bill that would require the state’s Health and Human Services Commission to create a three-hour course “regarding a pregnant woman’s option to place her child for adoption.” Women would have to take the class at least 24 hours before getting an abortion […]

“It is my hope that, when presented with more information on adoption resources and services available, more pregnancies can be carried to term,” Lucio said in a statement.

Texas’ restrictive abortion regulations already requires women to receive an ultrasound, have the fetus described, and receive counseling before getting an abortion.

Last month, they added a ban to all abortions in the state after 20 weeks and now require abortion clinics be certified as ambulatory surgical centers (tough specifications that could lead to clinics closing). Lucio was the only Democrat in the Texas Senate to vote in favor of that bill.

[…]

Lucio represents Brownsville, a border town among the poorest metro areas in the entire country whose access to preventative women’s health care has been seriously imperiled by abortion legislation in the state. And the situation in the area is already grim: Many women are turning to buying abortion drugs at sketchy flea markets across the border.

Comments Ed Mazlish:

“The Right seeks to fatigue women out if exercising their right to have abortion in the same way that the Left seeks to fatigue people from exercising their right to self-defense. Both use the phony rationalization of “protecting innocent life” in order to justify big government nanny statism.” 

Why Men Need Abortion Just As Much As Women Do | xoJane

Writes Dan Solomon in Why Men Need Abortion Just As Much As Women Do | xoJane:

We treat abortion like it’s something men have no part in because it’s possible for men to avoid the consequences of an unintended pregnancy. For men, sometimes it’s as simple as changing your phone number. But when we talk about the responsibilities that men have in the event that they get a woman pregnant, we rarely talk about how we have to ensure that abortion remains accessible. When we don’t do that, it’s just a different form of walking away from our responsibilities.

Wendy Davis, American Heroine

One lone woman stood for 10 consecutive hours against the entire Senate in the Lone Star state to defend a woman’s right to an abortion.

 

What Texas Sen. Wendy Davis did is an example of what those of us who cherish individual rights – and our numbers are few – may have to do in our lifetimes. Though exactly under which rule the bill to ban abortion failed amid the confusion in the Texas state Senate is unclear at this point, what is unequivocal is that Sen. Davis, who was not allowed to lean or use the toilet, embodies the American spirit of “Don’t Tread on Me.” While too many who claim to advocate for reason, capitalism and individual rights instead fetishize and fawn over conservatives such as Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin and others who would violate individual rights, Wendy Davis, whatever her flaws, stood for reason in thought and action. That she’s a hypocrite as a Democrat for protecting the sanctity of what she calls “personal relationships with [one’s] doctor” while supporting a party that just enacted a national dictatorship in health care is another issue. For now, she is the reason that a woman’s right to abortion is legal in Texas and that must be recognized, especially in a great, American state with a noble history of standing one’s ground for the proper principles of a free republic.

 

What happened in Texas is more indicative of Big Government than this week’s mixed Supreme Court rulings on irrational laws intended to influence hiring and admissions based on race – a despicable idea in any context – and irrational laws that specify certain types of persons, namely gays, for separate treatment under the law. Sen. Davis may have won the battle for individual rights, though barely to the extent that she did and her defense is mixed, but we are losing the war for reason in the West. As the left and right converge to create an American dictatorship, America is becoming a fascist state. Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who like an ayatollah prays and deprives himself of food as a means of government, may get his way on banning abortion in Texas yet and Wendy Davis may have merely bought a short length of time. The anti-abortion movement in Texas demonstrates that the threat of theocracy – whether it’s government by faith in the state or government by faith in God, tradition or religion – is rising.

 

Wendy Davis rose with great physical courage in action to speak out against theocracy and it’s thanks to her that Texas dodged a ban on a woman’s right to abortion. It’s not easy – it is becoming much more difficult – to rise up and speak out against the tyranny of the state. Standing her ground for individual rights – which are under attack everywhere in the U.S. – is a heroic example for all rational Americans. — Scott Holleran

“Post-Birth Abortion” Witch Hunt: Does Planned Parenthood Condone Murder?

In cases of a “botched” abortion, once delivered outside of the woman all efforts must be taken to support the newborn assuming it is viable. This is a far more complex issue to deal with (as opposed to the clear cut case of an abortion, say at one month into a pregnancy). But as in the case of “partial birth” abortions this is a woman’s right.

Capitalism Magazine writer Ed Cline had this to say on the recent controversy where it is claimed that “Planned Parenthood Official Argues for Right to Post-Birth Abortion“:

Here we have in this video (which I watched in its entirety) a woman being literally badgered by politicians asking her loaded questions (e.g., that hoary old chestnut of a courtroom question, “When did you stop beating your wife?”). Every one of them tried to coax out of her a confession that she condones “murder.” Not one queries her about the term or trimester in which an abortion has been performed. Was it at four months? Six months? Seven? Eight? And what is the physical condition of the “baby on the table”? Is it damaged? Is it an unsalvageable “preemie?” Was it going to be born defective, mentally or physically? Is it crying? Is it really a “patient on the table,” as the one snarky lawmaker remarked? There are a multitude of other issues appended to the abortion issue. But obviously the legislators weren’t interested in facts, not even medical facts. They were only interested in indicting the woman and abortionists and women who want an abortion for “murder,” who were all deemed guilty before the hearing convened. This was a witch hunt, not a civil enquiry.

 

While the Economy Lies in Peril Conservatives Spend Time Undermining a Woman’s Right to Abortion

From the NY Times:

FARGO, N.D. — Gov. Jack Dalrymple of North Dakota approved the nation’s toughest abortion restrictions on Tuesday, signing into law a measure that would ban nearly all abortions and inviting a legal showdown over just how much states can limit access to the procedure.

[…] The most far-reaching law forbids abortion once a fetal heartbeat is “detectable,” which can be as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. Fetal heartbeats are detectable at that stage of pregnancy using a transvaginal ultrasound.

Most legal scholars have said the law would violate the Supreme Court’s finding in Roe v. Wade that abortions were permitted until the fetus was viable outside the womb, generally around 24 weeks. Even some leaders of the anti-abortion movement nationally have predicted that laws banning abortion so early in pregnancy are virtually certain to be declared unconstitutional by federal courts.

Bear in mind that after 24 weeks it is up to states to decide whether abortions are permitted or not.

“Although the likelihood of this measure surviving a court challenge remains in question, this bill is nevertheless a legitimate attempt by a state legislature to discover the boundaries of Roe v. Wade,” Mr. Dalrymple said in a statement. The Supreme Court, he added, “has never considered this precise restriction” in the heartbeat bill.

“I think there’s a lot of frustration in the pro-life movement,” said Paul B. Linton, a constitutional lawyer in Illinois who was formerly general counsel of Americans United for Life. “Forty years after Roe v. Wade was decided, it’s still the law of the land.

The law also would ban sex-selective abortions and abortions based on genetic defects, such as Down Syndrome.

Pin It on Pinterest