"The Choice To Live" by Dennis C. Hardin
“The whole process of living,” states Ayn Rand, “consists of the achievement of values.”1 Moral values, in particular, consist of those specific things (the three basic ones being reason, purpose, self-esteem) which man must choose to pursue to sustain the life proper to a rational being. To live by the principles required to achieve these values is to earn the medal of moral virtue.
The pursuit of such particular values, however, presupposes an ultimate value: Life. Since the honoring of this ultimate value is also an act of choice, it has become a significant point of contention among Objectivists as to whether this ultimate act of choice is itself something for which one can be judged. Since morality—the rules for successful living—only applies once the choice to live has been made, how, it is asked, can one be judged for this choice? Logically, the argument continues, one can only be held accountable if one, in effect, buys into the game. Those who opt out of life should properly be exempt from condemnation for such forfeiture.
To begin with, we need to ask: what does the ‘choice to live’ entail? I would argue that it entails two essential aspects: (1) the recognition that one’s life is of value, and (2) the willingness to do whatever is required to achieve that value.
For the purposes of this article, let us identify the argument under discussion as the ‘pro-choice’ viewpoint, and its counter-argument—that the premoral commitment to life is itself a choice subject to praise or condemnation—as that of ‘pro-life.’
Advocates on either side of this argument acknowledge that there are specific circumstances, such as terminal illness or political slavery, where one might legitimately conclude that the value of one’s life cannot be properly enjoyed and that, therefore, suicide may be contextually valid. The disagreement pertains to the validity of the option to perish given a normal state of health and reasonable external potential for achieving a successful life.
A secondary issue directly related to this question is the role of morality in human life. In Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Leonard Peikoff describes morality as “man’s motive power.”2 But if morality is simply a means to the end of successful living, the pro-choice argument goes, it is rationalism to elevate moral principles to the status of a primary motivating factor in one’s choices and actions. This is, say the proponents of this view, context-dropping. Conformity to principle can never be invoked as a direct source of motivation. Our motivation must always come, not from the principles, but from their source: our passion to live.
While those who espouse the pro-choice view are asking important questions that are much deserving of attention, the fact remains that their position has problematic implications for Objectivism. By leaving open the subjective possibility that a given individual may legitimately treat his own life as of no value, direct damage is done to the ‘is-ought” connection between the metaphysical facts of man’s nature and what this portends for what he ought to do.
Peikoff states that Objectivism “holds that facts—certain definite facts—do lead logically to values. What ‘ought to be’ can be validated objectively.”3 And once validated in this way, what ‘ought to be’ is what man should do. To hold that the category of what ‘ought to be’ for man includes the option to self-destruct, leaves the entire edifice of the Objectivist ethics dependent on the whim of the individual, and throws it into the realm of the arbitrary.
Morality is a specific application of the Objectivist value theory to the problem of human survival. Values are the key to the survival of all living things, human or otherwise. “An organism’s life is its standard of value,” states Rand. “That which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.”4 Only then does she go on to say (quoting her own fictional hero, John Galt): “Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; He has to discover the values it requires and practice its virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality…”5
“The standard of value of the Objectivist ethics [she adds]—the standard by which one judges what is good or evil—is man’s life…”6
Since morality amounts to the mechanics of implementing the value of life, any choice that “preceded” such implementation would not, plainly, lend itself to evaluation as moral or immoral. Such a choice could, however, be evaluated as good or evil by the more fundamental standard of the Objectivist ethics: man’s life. Evil is the more fundamental concept, immoral the derivative concept. Given Rand’s statements above, the choice to reject life would be condemned as evil rather than immoral.
Indeed, the reason the term immoral would not apply is because the outright rejection of life as such would not entail any detailed analysis by reference to derivative principles—it is evil on its face. Morality consists of detailed rules by which one can assess the extent to which one’s behavior is consistent with the requirements of life. The direct, immediate choice of life or death, good or evil, has no need of complex evaluation. The choice of life is good; the choice of death, evil. At this level of evaluation, ethics is pointless.
Morality tells us which choice we are making, by direct or indirect consequence, when we choose productivity over theft, or honesty over deceit. It applies on the level of concretes and details. Direct decisions for or against life do not require such a guide. They are, nonetheless, subject to evaluation as good or evil by the same standard.
In her article, “Causality versus Duty,” Ayn Rand makes the statement that “to live is [man’s] basic act of choice. If he chooses to live, a rational ethics will tell him what principles of action are required to implement his choice. If he does not choose to live, nature will take its course.”7 The advocates of the view that the choice to live or not is somehow beyond judgment interpret this passage to mean that Objectivism should properly only apply its evaluative criteria to those who satisfy her precondition. But in no way is this implied by Rand, because, as already indicated, the Objectivist ethics is an application and development of the fundamental standard of good and evil. Ethics has no relevance to the direct acceptance or rejection of life as such, which can be evaluated without reference to derivative rules and principles.
In the passage cited, Ayn Rand is simply stating that if one, in effect, chooses goodness (i.e., life), then this guide is needed and should be followed. If evil and death are your choice, you don’t need a guide. They will find you in due time. There is no basis for claiming, as the pro-choice advocates seem to, that the existence of human volition in any way alters the good or evil represented by the two alternatives.
Further, to the extent to which a man chooses not to follow the guide that ethics gives him, he is acting as though he had chosen evil in the first place: he is acting as though he had no need of a guide. From the Objectivist perspective, when a man chooses to be moral, he is in that act choosing life; when he chooses immorality, he is, consciously or unconsciously, choosing death.
In view of the degree of the rampant discord on this issue, one has to wonder if, when the issue is brought up, one is hearing the real question. Given the crucial importance of the standard of life for the Objectivist ethics, it is hard to see why so many questions would be raised about the goodness or evil of the choice to live, in itself. It seems a likely hypothesis that some other question may well be at the root of this controversy. I will return to this issue.
Another aspect of the pro-choice argument is that it seems to rely heavily on a totally unrealistic view of what is really going on psychologically. The suggestion seems to be that this is a choice one makes at some early stage and from that day forward holds to obediently as if it were a self-imposed, binding, lifetime contract. Taking into account the second half of the breakdown described earlier, the decision to forfeit one’s life would need to be made by an omniscient infant with the ability to weigh the alternative of dying against the price of the effort put forth and suffering endured across a lifetime.
Since we do not happen to be omniscient, either as infants or at any other time in our lives, what is it, exactly, that does happen? To get an idea of how Ayn Rand would answer this question, consider this additional quote from “The Objectivist Ethics”:
“Psychologically, the choice ‘to think or not’ is the choice ‘to focus or not.’ Existentially, the choice ‘to focus or not’ is the choice ‘to be conscious or not.’ Metaphysically, the choice ‘to be conscious or not’ is the choice of life or death.”8 This implies that, for Ayn Rand, the choice to live is one that is made and reaffirmed constantly, in any hour or moment of one’s life, as one chooses to be aware on the human level, or to default on that responsibility.
In “Philosophy and Sense of Life,” Rand argues that a child first deals with issues of life and death in terms of what she calls ‘metaphysical value-judgments’—emotional evaluations of what the child sees as being ‘important’—as he develops the preconceptual equivalent of metaphysics, a “sense of life.” These judgments involve the answers to such questions as “whether the universe is knowable or not, whether man has the power of choice or not, whether he can achieve his goals in life or not. The answers to such questions are ‘metaphysical value-judgments,’ since they form the base of ethics.”9
One of the things that a rational, mentally active child will naturally come to see as important is, of course, his own life:
“ ‘It is important to understand things’—‘It is important to obey my parents’—‘It is important to act on my own’—‘It is important to please other people’—‘It is important to fight for what I want’—‘It is important not to make enemies’—‘My life is important’—‘Who am I to stick my neck out?’ Man is a being of self-made soul—and it is of such conclusions that the stuff of his soul is made.”10
“To the extent to which a man is mentally active, i.e., motivated by the desire to know, to understand, his mind works as the programmer of his emotional computer—and his sense of life develops into a bright counterpart of a rational philosophy.”11 There will always be vast differences of degree, of course, but the principle involved is, in effect, the more he strives to focus and to be aware, the greater the natural intensity the child will come to attach to his own life.
Such is the reality of how the choice to live or not is made—in the choice to think, to focus, to be aware—whether one is a child, a teenager or an adult. Thus, the more fundamental choice of life or death is actually made in the form of an action that is, clearly, subject to moral evaluation—namely, the choice to think or to evade that responsibility.
In explaining her theory of the nature of sense of life, Rand states that the origin of the particular value-judgments a child makes and the emotions attached to each “lies in an individual’s view of himself and his own existence.”12 The source of the emotional impact of sense of life—like its adult counterpart, morality—derives from what Rand describes as the “enormously powerful integrating mechanism of man’s consciousness.”13
“The transition from guidance by sense of life to guidance by conscious philosophy takes many forms.”14 Properly, the emotional power of sense of life is, as an adult, translated into an explicit philosophy—including ethics—and the two work in harmony, since the one never actually replaces the other. With or without such harmony, however, sense of life and ethics both play the role of powerful motivators within the human mind.
And this is where the criticism of morality as a prime source of human motivation goes wrong. The point is not whether morality should serve the role of prime motivator, but that it does, and irrevocably so. In her article on “Leading A Rational Life in an irrational Society,” Ayn Rand states that “Moral values are the motive power of a man’s actions.”15 By this, Rand is not implying that moral rules acquire some sort of intrinsic importance, independent of the life they are supposed to serve. Rather, she means that morality has a crucial psychological-emotional role to play in human action.
The motivating power of morality was, largely, Ayn Rand’s explanation for the present state of the world. In choosing altruism as his ethical guide, man has turned the power of morality against himself. To achieve the end of human happiness, morality must serve the goal of life. This is in the nature of the biological utility of a code of morality for man. One can, however, set the mechanism against life, and turn idealism into a self-destructive path.
Man’s unique awareness of his own mortality may be directly related to the power of morality over human behavior. This writer would argue that morality serves as the form in which man experiences the significance of his daily choices for the alternative of life or death—that such is the source of its influence on mankind throughout human history. It is not only a means to the end of life but also an inestimably powerful motivational tool for getting there.
If questioning the good or evil inherent in the choice to live does not seem plausible, given Rand’s clearly enunciated standard, perhaps another question is at the root of all this confusion, even to the point of eluding some Objectivists that it is there at all. Consider a somewhat different phrasing of the same basic question: ‘Why should one live?’
In The Psychology of Self-Esteem, Nathaniel Branden states that “the value of life is not to be justified by a value beyond itself; to demand such justification--to ask: why should man choose to live?—is to have dropped the meaning, context and source of one’s concepts. ‘Should’ is a concept that can have no intelligible meaning, if divorced from the concept and value of life.”16
But there are two possible perspectives to that question, and Branden has really addressed only one of them. The fact that one can grasp, theoretically, that life cannot be subject to evaluation by any other standard, must not be confused with the very different internal perspective of each living individual. In the act of becoming fully conscious on the human level, one is making the choice to hold one’s life as one’s own personal standard of value, and one is meeting the requirements described before for ‘choosing to live’: acknowledging the value of one’s life and acting to achieve it.
So the same question can be asked a different way, and with complete legitimacy: Why should I live? Since effort is required to produce the values required for survival, why do it? Such an internal perspective is valid in a way that the theoretical is not, because the internal perspective is, tacitly, assumed for the purposes of the theoretical. Value theorists begin with the assumption that ‘the living like living.’ Problems arise when they proceed to analyze ‘living’ in the abstract, while paying scant attention to the experience of being alive.
Peikoff, the foremost advocate of the pro-life perspective, implies in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand that the logical basis of the choice to live consists of the obligation of things in reality to remain in it.17 This is, however, inconsistent with Peikoff’s willingnness to make exception for those suffering under tyranny or from painful disease. An obligation to sustain one’s existence for the sake of existence would require that this be done regardless of one’s internal experience of existence as positive or negative. But no value is intrinsic, including life. Peikoff’s willingness to allow for unfortunate exceptions implies that there is another relevant criterion—namely, that one’s experience of life be profoundly positive.
The perspective ignored by Peikoff and many other commentators on various aspects of this issue is the internal one: the immediate, tacit awareness of life as the supreme value, validated through direct experience and confirmed by observation of others. That is the only answer to the question: Why should I live? If I am alive, and I am not ravaged by disease or bound in political chains, I am acutely aware of the value of being alive. It is an indisputable fact, but also a fact which cannot be “proven” by arranging a series of hierarchically dependent premises leading to this as the conclusion.
But though, like an axiom, it cannot be proven, there is an objective fact each of us can point to which will establish its truth: our internal experience of being alive. The act of pointing internally no more renders this a subjective judgment than is the entire epistemological category of emotions and introspective concepts inherently subjective. Reality simply leaves us no other means of verification other than introspection and corroboration.
This, however, only addresses the first of the two aspects of the choice to live discussed earlier—one’s recognition of the value of life. Given a normal state of biological health, this is simply not open to reasoned debate. On a moment’s reflection and simple honesty, the deliberation either ends or dissipates into nonsense. It is the second aspect—the willingness to pay the price of achieving the value of one’s life—which the pro-choice advocates appear to be asking us to leave to the whim of the individual. If a man decides he has neither the strength nor the courage to live, according to the pro-choice perspective, he should be beyond criticism by those who do.
Yet it is precisely effort and courage which are the essence of moral responsibility. Those who default are not to be exonerated for their weakness and cowardice. They do not earn innocence by their candor. They are evil. It is that simple.
It may be the abstract philosopher’s natural fear of the introspective question that makes him fall back on the theoretical one—and get lost in so doing. But if one sidesteps the internal experience of life as good, one is left with either Peikoff’s intrinsicism or a borderline subjectivism, tied to a whim—a viewpoint which faults a man for an isolated fraction of the rules, but sanctions with its silence the man who would cast his entire life into the garbage pail.
The argument could be made that, in holding individuals accountable for the “evil” of choosing death over life, an important distinction between two senses of the word “evil” is being blurred. Certain things which are destructive to life—such as earthquakes—can be “evil,” without implying culpability on the part of its victims. In general, for evil to justify condemnation, the responsibility of the acting agent must be demonstrated, and this only occurs where evil is coextensive with immorality.
The specific evaluation of immorality has already been shown to be inapplicable here. And since any given individual’s awareness of the value of life cannot be proven to the satisfaction of doubters, the pro-choice argument implies, culpability at the level of the fundamental choice to live cannot be warranted.
This argument, however, fails on two levels. The first is that, as indicated above, the demand for proof in this context is totally invalid and, in itself, nonobjective. The second is that, having granted legitimacy to the premise that the value of life is somehow subjective (i.e., left to the option of the individual), there is no way to reinject objectivity into the ethical equation. All effort, all achievement, all virtue, are reduced to the metaphysical equivalent of a coin-flip.
The laudable intent of Objectivists subscribing to the pro-choice view may well be, in part, that of liberating the moral agent from responsibility for what cannot be ‘objectively established.’ Once the end is established, they would argue, one can show a direct causal link to that which is required to achieve it, and we can take the guesswork out of the deal. In fact, however, what is set free is morality from objectivity. Further, pro-choice advocates are engaging in the exact same rationalism as those metaphysical idealists at the turn of the century who insisted on “proof” of existence. In the spirit of G.E. Moore holding up two hands, the best one can give to such an advocate is: Pause a moment, and open your eyes to what is staring you in the face.
Without the appeal to internal experience, one has no way of answering the personal perspective on the question—Why should one live? The answer is neither intrinsicism nor subjectivism but two simple words: Look within.
Yes, the choice to live is a crucially important choice, but it is not a choice between two neutral alternatives. All other things being equal, it is a choice between good and evil. The choice to live is, further, the rational choice—the only one in keeping with human nature.
When this choice becomes integrated with a pro-life morality, man places his emotions in the service of his life and happiness, and the result is not a stoical, joyless rigidity, but a profoundly passionate, egoistic idealism.
Footnotes:
1. Ayn Rand, The PLAYBOY Interview
2. Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (new York, Dutton, 1991), p. 284.
3. Ibid., p. 207.
4. Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet Books, 1964), p.17.
5. Ibid., p. 23.
6. Ibid.
7. Ayn Rand, “Causality vs. Duty,” in Philosophy: Who Needs It (New York: Signet Books, 1984), p.99.
8. Ibid., “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 21.
9. Ayn Rand, “Philosophy and Sense of Life,” in The Romantic Manifesto (New York: Signet Books, 1971), p. 28.
10. Ibid., p. 28.
11. Ibid., p. 26.
12. Ibid., p. 28.
13. Ibid., p. 27.
14. Ibid., p. 29.
15. Ayn Rand, “How Does One Lead a Rational Life in an Irrational Society?,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York: Signet Books, 1964), p. 73.
16. Nathaniel Branden, The Psychology of Self-Esteem (New York: Bantam Books, 1971), p. 236.
17. Peikoff, ibid., pp. 211-212.
Dennis C. Hardin has a Ph.D. in psychology and is a licensed psychotherapist in California. From 1986 to 1995, he ran a discussion group in Los Angeles, the Forum for the New Intellectual.
NOTE: This article was first published in the December, 1992 edition of Full Context, the newsletter of the Objectivist Club of Michigan.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Ted Kennedy, 1932-2009
Some expert on post-mortem etiquette once said that if you can’t say anything good about someone who has passed on, you shouldn’t say anything at all.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
Azeusism vs Atheism
In Greek mythology, Zeus was the king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of sky and thunder. He was the Greek equivalent of today’s generic Judeo-Christian “God.”
When Christianity began to gain in popularity during the first and second centuries, Greek mythology still held sway in The Roman Empire. So, the early converts to Christianity could have been called Azeusists. Azeuzists refused to believe in Zeus. Atheists refuse to believe in a generic God.
Conservative Romans, understandably, looked upon Azeusists with disdain, just as the religious conservatives of today regard atheists with contempt. Secularism and atheism are wrongly blamed for all manner of atrocities, from Hitler and the holocaust to the horrors of Soviet-style communism. No doubt the early Christian Azeusists had to endure similar abuse from the conventional “believers” in the first and second centuries.
The truth, of course, is that both Nazism and communism are brazenly irrational ideologies rooted in the philosophical traditions of emotionalism, subjectivism and collectivism. Their essence is every bit as anti-reason as any God-based religion. To blame atheism for their atrocities is to ignore the actual source of those evil ideologies. Azeusism is not the basis of Christianity (or Judaism) any more than atheism was the basis of Nazism and communism. The absence of a belief in a particular God says nothing fundamental about the actual content of a belief system.
Christians (and Jews) need to realize that, in terms of unconventional radicalism, their early adherents shared something in common with the atheists of today. Christians rejected Greek mythology in the name of Jesus.
Rational atheists reject all mythology in the name of reason.
When Christianity began to gain in popularity during the first and second centuries, Greek mythology still held sway in The Roman Empire. So, the early converts to Christianity could have been called Azeusists. Azeuzists refused to believe in Zeus. Atheists refuse to believe in a generic God.
Conservative Romans, understandably, looked upon Azeusists with disdain, just as the religious conservatives of today regard atheists with contempt. Secularism and atheism are wrongly blamed for all manner of atrocities, from Hitler and the holocaust to the horrors of Soviet-style communism. No doubt the early Christian Azeusists had to endure similar abuse from the conventional “believers” in the first and second centuries.
The truth, of course, is that both Nazism and communism are brazenly irrational ideologies rooted in the philosophical traditions of emotionalism, subjectivism and collectivism. Their essence is every bit as anti-reason as any God-based religion. To blame atheism for their atrocities is to ignore the actual source of those evil ideologies. Azeusism is not the basis of Christianity (or Judaism) any more than atheism was the basis of Nazism and communism. The absence of a belief in a particular God says nothing fundamental about the actual content of a belief system.
Christians (and Jews) need to realize that, in terms of unconventional radicalism, their early adherents shared something in common with the atheists of today. Christians rejected Greek mythology in the name of Jesus.
Rational atheists reject all mythology in the name of reason.
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Abortion Rights and Fetal Viability
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.
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.
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)