Following the murder of Kansas abortionist George Tiller on May 31, 2009, public attention has again focused on the issue of partial birth and late-term abortion. Tiller’s assassination was a heinous act; that much is clear. His murderer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. But the issue which Tiller’s death has brought to light is not that of abortion rights. It is more specifically the issue of late-term abortion.
Scott Holleran, an Objectivist writing for Capitalism Magazine (capmag.com), wrote an article-- Abortion and the Death of Dr. George Tiller--in which he never once mentions the fact that Tiller specialized in late-term abortions—abortions where the viability of the fetus was often not in question. He correctly defends abortion as a woman’s right to control her own body, but completely glosses over the fundamental question of fetal viability.
Dr. Mary L. Davenport, M.D., a former abortionist herself, writes that "contrary to the assertion of abortion rights supporters that late-term abortion is performed for serious reasons, surveys of late abortion patients confirm that the vast majority occur because of delay in diagnosis of pregnancy. They are done for similar reasons as early abortions: relationship problems, young or old maternal age, education or financial concerns." Davenport cites a statement by Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, who admitted in 1997 that the vast majority of partial-birth abortions were performed on healthy mothers and babies.
"The very fact that the baby of an ill mother is viable raises the question of why, indeed, it is necessary to perform an abortion to end the pregnancy,” says Davenport. “With any serious maternal health problem, termination of pregnancy can be accomplished by inducing labor or performing a cesarean section, saving both mother and baby."
Glenn Woiceshyn, another Objectivist writing on behalf of the Ayn Rand Institute, made the following statements in several articles dealing with the controversial topic of so-called "partial birth abortion":
" 'Partial-birth' abortion, most commonly known as intact dilation and extraction (D&X), is designed primarily to be used in the case of 5- and 6-month-old fetuses that are dying, malformed, or threaten the woman's health or life... “
"Anti-abortionists coined the term 'partial birth' to suggest that the partially removed fetus is no longer "unborn," and, therefore, Roe vs. Wade no longer applies (so they allege). But linguistic manipulation can't create an essential distinction when none exists. A woman has a right to her own body, and, if she chooses to abort, then all effort should be made to protect the woman from injury. To rule otherwise is to negate this right."
"Banning any type of abortion to 'protect the fetus' necessarily grants rights to the fetus -- an utter perversion of individual rights... Properly, an infant's rights begin after the fetus is removed from the mother's body and its umbilical cord cut..." Ban on "Partial-Birth" Abortion Would Be a Blow to Individual Rights (9-25-03)
The fact is that there are essential distinctions to be made here, but Woiceshyn (and, by his silence on the issue, Holleran) want to deny this. Banning the abortion of a viable fetus in favor of safely removing it from the womb in no way violates the mother’s rights. Anti-abortionists claim that this issue reveals the hypocrisy behind the claims of pro-choice advocates that they want to stand on the principle of a woman's right to control her own body. The cavalier sanction of late term abortion, when the viability of the fetus is in question, suggests that whim-worship, not self-determination, is what the supporters of pro-choice are really defending.
Where a clear threat to the health and safety of the woman can clearly be established, late-term abortion may well be justified. But Woiceshyn defends abortion in a way that implies a woman can blithely choose to destroy the fetus until the moment the umbilical cord is cut. He contends that to do otherwise is to open the door to an eventual ban on all abortions. But there is no slippery slope if the line is drawn at the point of fetal viability.
The opposite is true: the failure to make crucial distinctions regarding the developmental stage of the embryo or fetus totally undermines the pro-choice position, and lends credence to the pro-lifer's contention that all abortion represents the devaluation of human life.
Woiceshyn argues that the opponents of "partial birth abortion" are trying to "create an essential distinction when none exists." Well, since he is writing under the auspices of the Ayn Rand Institute, he might have investigated what she had to say on the subject:
"Never mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a 'right to life.' A piece of protoplasm has no rights—and no life in the human sense of the term. One may argue about the later stages of a pregnancy, but the essential issue concerns only the first three months. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.” Ayn Rand, The Ayn Rand Letter, A Last Survey--Part I, Vol. IV, No. 2 November-December, 1975.
Ayn Rand obviously considered the first three months of a pregnancy to be essentially distinct from the subsequent stages. There is every reason to believe she may well have opposed late-term and ‘partial-birth’ abortion.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Is Obama a Friend of Freedom?
Polish dissident Lech Walesa recently said of Ronald Reagan:
“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend…”
The leader of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, gave similar credit to Reagan for his moral support of the anticommunist rebellion in his own country.
Yet President Obama prefers to take a ‘wait and see’ attitude toward the dissident movement in Iran. He wants to know who the winner will be before he takes sides. He does not want to “antagonize’ the brutal dictators who are the major exporters of international terrorism. He wants to be sure they are not upset with him when he eventually sits down across the negotiating table. Years from now, if the dissidents succeed in winning their freedom, they are unlikely to express much fondness for the role Obama played in their struggle against tyranny.
Obama sent Vice-President Biden to Lebanon on the eve of their national election, thus giving a big boost to the anti-Hezbollah forces that prevailed in that vote. Somehow that was not “meddling.” Of course it was—and with good cause. The cause of American self-interest, the security of a key American ally, Israel, and the defeat of international terrorism.
Obama claims he does not want to give the Iranian leadership any cause to blame the United States for the uprising. Well, guess what? The Iranian leadership is doing that anyway. But the dissidents are not responding as expected.
Things have changed in the 30 years since the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah. There was considerable anti-American sentiment then, because the U.S. was seen as propping up the Shah. But today’s Iranian dissidents are singing a very different tune. Most of them were not even born in 1979. What they want is freedom, and they are looking to the leader of the free world for some much-needed encouragement.
This is the moment we have been waiting for—the perfect opportunity to get rid of this oppressive theocracy without firing a shot, and we are choosing to sit quietly on the sidelines. In the name of American self-interest, we should be actively helping the dissidents in any way we can.
The evidence that they want our support is clear. Many of the signs they are holding are written in English. Whose attention do you think they are seeking? Two thirds of Iran’s current population is thirty and under, and they do not want to live their lives under a backward theocratic regime. Many of them are yelling: “Death to the Ayatollah!” They like America because, up to now, we have explicitly declined to endorse their oppressors.
But in his relative silence, Obama is doing exactly that. Would Bush have handled the situation differently? Who knows? He did not speak out in support of the protestors in Tibet in 2008. Nor did he back those protesting the re-election of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak in 2005. But in neither of those cases were the vital interests of the United States as much at stake as they are in Iran.
We can only hope that Obama will reverse course and emulate the unflinching courage of Ronald Reagan. If Obama could successfully rally the international community to the cause of freedom in Iran, he might well earn a place alongside Reagan’s proud legacy.
“When talking about Ronald Reagan, I have to be personal. We in Poland took him so personally. Why? Because we owe him our liberty. This can't be said often enough by people who lived under oppression for half a century, until communism fell in 1989. Poles fought for their freedom for so many years that they hold in special esteem those who backed them in their struggle. Support was the test of friendship. President Reagan was such a friend…”
The leader of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, gave similar credit to Reagan for his moral support of the anticommunist rebellion in his own country.
Yet President Obama prefers to take a ‘wait and see’ attitude toward the dissident movement in Iran. He wants to know who the winner will be before he takes sides. He does not want to “antagonize’ the brutal dictators who are the major exporters of international terrorism. He wants to be sure they are not upset with him when he eventually sits down across the negotiating table. Years from now, if the dissidents succeed in winning their freedom, they are unlikely to express much fondness for the role Obama played in their struggle against tyranny.
Obama sent Vice-President Biden to Lebanon on the eve of their national election, thus giving a big boost to the anti-Hezbollah forces that prevailed in that vote. Somehow that was not “meddling.” Of course it was—and with good cause. The cause of American self-interest, the security of a key American ally, Israel, and the defeat of international terrorism.
Obama claims he does not want to give the Iranian leadership any cause to blame the United States for the uprising. Well, guess what? The Iranian leadership is doing that anyway. But the dissidents are not responding as expected.
Things have changed in the 30 years since the Ayatollah overthrew the Shah. There was considerable anti-American sentiment then, because the U.S. was seen as propping up the Shah. But today’s Iranian dissidents are singing a very different tune. Most of them were not even born in 1979. What they want is freedom, and they are looking to the leader of the free world for some much-needed encouragement.
This is the moment we have been waiting for—the perfect opportunity to get rid of this oppressive theocracy without firing a shot, and we are choosing to sit quietly on the sidelines. In the name of American self-interest, we should be actively helping the dissidents in any way we can.
The evidence that they want our support is clear. Many of the signs they are holding are written in English. Whose attention do you think they are seeking? Two thirds of Iran’s current population is thirty and under, and they do not want to live their lives under a backward theocratic regime. Many of them are yelling: “Death to the Ayatollah!” They like America because, up to now, we have explicitly declined to endorse their oppressors.
But in his relative silence, Obama is doing exactly that. Would Bush have handled the situation differently? Who knows? He did not speak out in support of the protestors in Tibet in 2008. Nor did he back those protesting the re-election of Egypt’s Hosni Mubarak in 2005. But in neither of those cases were the vital interests of the United States as much at stake as they are in Iran.
We can only hope that Obama will reverse course and emulate the unflinching courage of Ronald Reagan. If Obama could successfully rally the international community to the cause of freedom in Iran, he might well earn a place alongside Reagan’s proud legacy.
Thursday, June 18, 2009
The Definition of Insanity
Is Barack Obama losing his mind?
Aside from ignoring the best opportunity to help foment a fantastic pro-freedom revolution in Iran-- the worst instigator of international terrorism and therefore the greatest threat to US security? Timidity in the present historical context is tantamount to a total abnegation of Presidential responsibility. But let’s disregard that little matter for now. Someone once said that the definition of insanity was repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting different results.
President Barack Obama’s call for the creation of a new office within the federal government — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency—is based on the theory that If only someone in government had been looking out for consumers, the subprime mortgage mess might never have happened. We must take action to reverse the “culture of irresponsibility” that led to the current financial crisis.
The new agency would have the power to make rules for the industry and to enforce them. Obama said that the power to lay out new rules is essential, “so that the bad practices that led to the home mortgage crisis will be stamped out.”
“Most critically in the run-up to the financial crisis, mortgage companies and others outside the purview of bank regulation exploited that lack of clear accountability by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated and unsuited to borrowers’ financial situation,” the Obama administration says. “Banks and thrifts followed suit, with disastrous results for consumers and the financial system…”
Could Obama possibly not know that it was government intervention that directly led to the mortgage meltdown? Could he be ignorant of the fact federal legislation spawned agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the purpose of promoting sub-prime mortgages—i.e., mortgages for people who could not afford them on the free market? The “culture of irresponsibility” was a Frankenstein monster deliberately brought to life by the federal government. Without the government offering to stand behind subprime loans, the mortgage crisis could never have happened. Financial institutions would never have made the bad loans.
Obama’s solution? More government intervention.
Insanity? The solution is to return to the free market’s built-in rule for survival: the fundamental responsibility imposed by the need to make responsible business decisions out of rational self-interest.
And then there was President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association last Monday. He used the occasion to promote his proposal for national health care--the largest expansion of federal intervention into U.S. health care since the creation of Medicare in 1965. Obama is determined to reshape the entire medical industry and change how Americans receive and pay for healthcare. We must act now to “control the spiraling cost of health care in America.”
Apparently the amount of cost imposed on taxpayers counts for nothing. Another measly trillion dollars. Big deal.
He ignores so much of the reality staring him in the face that you start to wonder about the man’s grip on reality. When did medical costs begin to spiral out of control in this country? With the advent of Medicare. It was then that the federal government, with all its cumbersome incompetence and lack of free market self-discipline, became a primary player in the healthcare field. Doctors and hospitals began charging fees that would never have been paid if tax funds were not covering the cost. Suddenly the Pentagon’s infamous approach to expenditure control (remember the $2000 toilet seat?) was extended to doctor visits and hospital stays. All hell broke loose.
Obama expressed awareness of all the alleged problems that other nations who have nationalized healthcare have encountered. . All this talk of services denied or seriously delayed, turning elder citizens away from care altogether, serious declines in health care quality, huge strains on the budget and economy, and America as the last bastion of healthcare quality and innovation. Etc. Etc. Baloney. “We have heard it all before,” he says. We cannot use such alleged ‘facts’ as an excuse for inaction.
He offered no evidence that any of those facts were inaccurate. Instead, he stoked fears about the fiscal disaster that awaits us if we do nothing, using General Motors as an example: "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke." Except that medicine, unlike the auto industry, isn’t being dragged into bankruptcy by exorbitant, government-backed union contracts. As already explained, medicine is being destroyed, in large part, by an existing government program: Medicare.
Now Obama’s solution for achieving universal healthcare is to “slash health care costs” by creating a Medicare-style government insurance plan open to everyone. Note: Medicare’s projected unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are about $36 trillion. If current trends persist, the cost of Medicare will be 19% of gross domestic product by then.
Now imagine the cost of expanding that program to cover everyone, not just the elderly and indigent. The mind boggles.
Unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office, Obama does not hve the luxury of being perceived as stupid. (I do not know if Bush is, in fact, stupid, just that he was often perceived that way. ) Obama is perceived as intelligent. So if he is behaving foolishly, we are left with two alternatives: (1) ulterior motives, or (2) insanity. Advocates of the first hypothesis suggest that his agenda calls for destroying capitalism and the capitalist ethic (i.e., self-interest) in the name of Marxism and collectivism. Socialists often elevate their warped moral ideals over practical reality. If ulterior motives are at work here, Obama's tenure as president will prove to be devoted to dismantling the American way of life. My hypothesis is somewhat more charitable.
So let me just say that I am genuinely concerned about our President. Anybody know a good psychiatrist?
Aside from ignoring the best opportunity to help foment a fantastic pro-freedom revolution in Iran-- the worst instigator of international terrorism and therefore the greatest threat to US security? Timidity in the present historical context is tantamount to a total abnegation of Presidential responsibility. But let’s disregard that little matter for now. Someone once said that the definition of insanity was repeating the same behavior over and over while expecting different results.
President Barack Obama’s call for the creation of a new office within the federal government — a Consumer Financial Protection Agency—is based on the theory that If only someone in government had been looking out for consumers, the subprime mortgage mess might never have happened. We must take action to reverse the “culture of irresponsibility” that led to the current financial crisis.
The new agency would have the power to make rules for the industry and to enforce them. Obama said that the power to lay out new rules is essential, “so that the bad practices that led to the home mortgage crisis will be stamped out.”
“Most critically in the run-up to the financial crisis, mortgage companies and others outside the purview of bank regulation exploited that lack of clear accountability by selling mortgages and other products that were overly complicated and unsuited to borrowers’ financial situation,” the Obama administration says. “Banks and thrifts followed suit, with disastrous results for consumers and the financial system…”
Could Obama possibly not know that it was government intervention that directly led to the mortgage meltdown? Could he be ignorant of the fact federal legislation spawned agencies such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac for the purpose of promoting sub-prime mortgages—i.e., mortgages for people who could not afford them on the free market? The “culture of irresponsibility” was a Frankenstein monster deliberately brought to life by the federal government. Without the government offering to stand behind subprime loans, the mortgage crisis could never have happened. Financial institutions would never have made the bad loans.
Obama’s solution? More government intervention.
Insanity? The solution is to return to the free market’s built-in rule for survival: the fundamental responsibility imposed by the need to make responsible business decisions out of rational self-interest.
And then there was President Obama's speech to the American Medical Association last Monday. He used the occasion to promote his proposal for national health care--the largest expansion of federal intervention into U.S. health care since the creation of Medicare in 1965. Obama is determined to reshape the entire medical industry and change how Americans receive and pay for healthcare. We must act now to “control the spiraling cost of health care in America.”
Apparently the amount of cost imposed on taxpayers counts for nothing. Another measly trillion dollars. Big deal.
He ignores so much of the reality staring him in the face that you start to wonder about the man’s grip on reality. When did medical costs begin to spiral out of control in this country? With the advent of Medicare. It was then that the federal government, with all its cumbersome incompetence and lack of free market self-discipline, became a primary player in the healthcare field. Doctors and hospitals began charging fees that would never have been paid if tax funds were not covering the cost. Suddenly the Pentagon’s infamous approach to expenditure control (remember the $2000 toilet seat?) was extended to doctor visits and hospital stays. All hell broke loose.
Obama expressed awareness of all the alleged problems that other nations who have nationalized healthcare have encountered. . All this talk of services denied or seriously delayed, turning elder citizens away from care altogether, serious declines in health care quality, huge strains on the budget and economy, and America as the last bastion of healthcare quality and innovation. Etc. Etc. Baloney. “We have heard it all before,” he says. We cannot use such alleged ‘facts’ as an excuse for inaction.
He offered no evidence that any of those facts were inaccurate. Instead, he stoked fears about the fiscal disaster that awaits us if we do nothing, using General Motors as an example: "If we do not fix our health care system, America may go the way of GM; paying more, getting less, and going broke." Except that medicine, unlike the auto industry, isn’t being dragged into bankruptcy by exorbitant, government-backed union contracts. As already explained, medicine is being destroyed, in large part, by an existing government program: Medicare.
Now Obama’s solution for achieving universal healthcare is to “slash health care costs” by creating a Medicare-style government insurance plan open to everyone. Note: Medicare’s projected unfunded liabilities over the next 75 years are about $36 trillion. If current trends persist, the cost of Medicare will be 19% of gross domestic product by then.
Now imagine the cost of expanding that program to cover everyone, not just the elderly and indigent. The mind boggles.
Unlike his predecessor in the Oval Office, Obama does not hve the luxury of being perceived as stupid. (I do not know if Bush is, in fact, stupid, just that he was often perceived that way. ) Obama is perceived as intelligent. So if he is behaving foolishly, we are left with two alternatives: (1) ulterior motives, or (2) insanity. Advocates of the first hypothesis suggest that his agenda calls for destroying capitalism and the capitalist ethic (i.e., self-interest) in the name of Marxism and collectivism. Socialists often elevate their warped moral ideals over practical reality. If ulterior motives are at work here, Obama's tenure as president will prove to be devoted to dismantling the American way of life. My hypothesis is somewhat more charitable.
So let me just say that I am genuinely concerned about our President. Anybody know a good psychiatrist?
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
It Was Great While It Lasted
Dateline Washington: “Pentagon officials warned on Tuesday that North Korea's missiles could strike the U.S. within three years if its weapons growth goes unchecked.”
Guess where in the US? Good morning, LA. Your days are officially numbered.
Based on everything we are seeing—and not seeing--it looks as if our pathetic “leaders” have no intention of protecting the United States. No wonder they have dispensed with all that prattle about terrorism. What is the purpose of government, if not national self-defense? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its purpose is to tax the life out of the economy, bail out failed businesses, devalue the currency and provide cheap, third-rate medical care. And sanction terrorist Islamic regimes when they are threatened with insurrection.
Meanwhile the imbecile ‘do-gooders’ keep up their costly, wasteful war on drugs, even while they do everything they can to create demand for brain killers by destroying productive society. Let’s lock up all the dopey marijuana users while drunk drivers kill thousands every year. That’s a good investment of police forces and prisons. They could at least let people have a little fun while they’re busy ruining everyone’s lives. I mean, even the Romans got to have their orgies while the Barbarians were getting ready to storm the gates.
I don’t use drugs. I just think it’s ironic. Make people miserable so they need to escape. Then take away their means of escape. What a dirty, rotten thing to do.
Our wonderful protectors are despicably cruel as well as unbelievably cowardly and incompetent.
Congrats, you power-lusting D.C. slime. It wasn’t easy, destroying the greatest nation in human history, but you managed. Way to go.
Guess where in the US? Good morning, LA. Your days are officially numbered.
Based on everything we are seeing—and not seeing--it looks as if our pathetic “leaders” have no intention of protecting the United States. No wonder they have dispensed with all that prattle about terrorism. What is the purpose of government, if not national self-defense? Oh yeah, I forgot. Its purpose is to tax the life out of the economy, bail out failed businesses, devalue the currency and provide cheap, third-rate medical care. And sanction terrorist Islamic regimes when they are threatened with insurrection.
Meanwhile the imbecile ‘do-gooders’ keep up their costly, wasteful war on drugs, even while they do everything they can to create demand for brain killers by destroying productive society. Let’s lock up all the dopey marijuana users while drunk drivers kill thousands every year. That’s a good investment of police forces and prisons. They could at least let people have a little fun while they’re busy ruining everyone’s lives. I mean, even the Romans got to have their orgies while the Barbarians were getting ready to storm the gates.
I don’t use drugs. I just think it’s ironic. Make people miserable so they need to escape. Then take away their means of escape. What a dirty, rotten thing to do.
Our wonderful protectors are despicably cruel as well as unbelievably cowardly and incompetent.
Congrats, you power-lusting D.C. slime. It wasn’t easy, destroying the greatest nation in human history, but you managed. Way to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)