Abortion Rights are Absolute: Ayn Rand Explains
Вставка
- Опубліковано 6 чер 2024
- Read more about Ayn Rand’s position on abortion in her essay “Of Living Death.”
courses.aynrand.org/works/of-...
Request a free book: aynrand.org/vor-old
“Egalitarianism and Inflation”
• "Egalitarianism and In...
Ayn Rand’s Radical Case for Abortion Rights by Ben Bayer
newideal.aynrand.org/ayn-rand...
This was Ayn Rand's answer to a question following her speech, “Egalitarianism and Inflation.”
Question: Do unborn children have any rights?
TIMESTAMPS
(00:00) - Intro
(00:10) - Do unborn children have any rights?
Egalitarianism and Inflation, 1974
Subscribe to ARI’s UA-cam channel to make sure you never miss a video:
ua-cam.com/users/subscription_...
Download or stream free courses on Ayn Rand’s works and ideas with the Ayn Rand University app:
- App Store itunes.apple.com/us/app/ayn-r...
- Google Play play.google.com/store/apps/de...
ARI is funded by donor contributions. You can support our work by becoming an ARI Member or making a one-time contribution: ari.aynrand.org/donate
******
Keep in Touch! Sign up to receive email updates from ARI: aynrand.org/signup
Follow ARI on Twitter: / aynrandinst
Follow ARI on Facebook: / aynrandinstitute
Follow ARI on Instagram: / aynrandorg
Subscribe to the ARI Live! podcast: podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast...
******
Explore these ideas further! ARI's online publication, New Ideal, explores pressing cultural issues from the perspective of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism: newideal.aynrand.org/
Join an upcoming virtual or in-person event: ari.aynrand.org/events/
Visit ARI’s website for more about our content and programs: ari.aynrand.org/
Notice this just refers to 'clumps of cells', which is true for a very short period of time, and well before common standards of abortion practices historically.
We actually do sacrifice actualities for potentialities all the time in human life. It’s how the species has continued, sacrificing for the future generations. All pregnancies involve sacrifice and risk, especially before modern medicine. Without pregnancy there is no human life. Every actuality comes from a potentiality. I like Ayn Rand but I wish I could debate her on this. Sounds like she’d be moderate on abortion anyway, as she said when they’re almost born they’re babies.
Her position is still murderous but an understandable one for one with a lack of scientific background in the 1970s.
Arguments from Nature, Natural Law, generally fall flat. Because if you go down that rabbit hole you end up being capable of "justifying" the murder of "genetically inferior" types and so on. Because it's for the good of the species, remember?
We've been there in the 20th century and it didn't end well.
@@janehrahan5116 And your position is not understandable because it's an empty insult presumably driven by hurt feelings.
I don't think she lived long enough to fully contemplate this.
Or maybe you haven't.
I don't understand why you're here?
1) I agree with Ayn Rand.
2) Daaaamn! She didn't hold back! That was freaking incredible!
I disagree. Legal abortions in the United States generally go up to about the 21st week of the pregnancy. I remember seeing ultrasound images of my daughter when she was 12 weeks old, and she looked like a tiny baby. She had hands, feet, fingers, and toes. She had a beating heart and brain activity. She was not just a clump of cells.
I believe that a woman's right to choose starts before she gets pregnant, when she decides to engage in unprotected sex. If she is unable to afford a child, she shouldn't do the one thing that would get her pregnant.
Ayn Rand is totally off the mark here. She should have stuck to her economic ideas.
There is clearly a grey area here, and it's reasonable to error on the side of assuming actuality over potentiality.
i agree completely and often use the same exact argument. its pretty easy to avoid getting pregnant. In fact you have to go WELL out of your way for it to happen at all.
Excepting instances of sexual assault/rape, of course, which is a tricky area that I'm still not clear on.
When someone gets pregnant as a result of consensual sex, they should bear the consequences just as one would bear the consequences of ANY action they undertake willingly and intentionally. Regardless of whether or not they can "afford" it (financially or otherwise).
@@twinblade63 Let's assume an embryo is a child. You're saying it's OK to commit murder because someone else (not the child) did something wrong?
The reason that your daughter was more than just a clump of cells was because you wanted to have a child.
An embryo becomes a person *if* it is grown in a womb and then birthed. An embryo in and of itself has no purpose, no self-esteem, no desires, no goals, no ability, no autonomy, no identity. It is not a person.
@@Shozb0t So disposing of the baby is fine so long as it's done before birth?
the only difference between an embryo and Ayn Rand, is time
So what?
You could say everyone dies, hence life has no value... you can draw any conclusion from an empty assertion.
@@willnitschke ironically, because you choose to terminate a human being, you have decided their value for them- which is zero. This assertion has no respect for the individual or their autonomy
@@FutureLaugh You are assuming your premise. Is a fertilised egg a human being? There is no scientific or rational justification for such a belief.
@@willnitschkeit is to a judge if you drunk drive and hit a pregnant woman loses this anonymous mass of non human cells. weird how the only scientific definition of an individual's humanity is based on the feelings of the woman, if she feels like wanting it or not.
@@FutureLaugh Why did you deflect? Are you claiming a newly fertilized egg is a human being? If you duck the question, we can assume the answer is no and you're admitting you're wrong.
Ayn Rand made emphatic but very few comments about abortion. Please notice that she clarified even this one by saying that late term abortion is a different issue. If she had lived a little bit longer, she may have expounded further.
I disagree with Rand on this issue because the whole bromide about an embryo being "not a person" or "a clump of cells" is facetious. Everyone is made of cells, yet we don't then conclude that murder is okay because you're just "removing a clump of cells". What I think often happens too in these discussions is context-dropping: if a woman didn't want to risk pregnancy then she shouldnt have sex, or she should use contraceptive measures. Excepting cases of rape, incest or where the pregnancy would harm the mother, I don't think abortion should be allowed.
Oh and her idea that having children you can't afford is a form of the woman being sacrificed - no, it's the consequences of their actions, which they have to deal with.
Huh? Your "argument" is that clumps of cells are equivalent to human beings with moral agency? Following that "logic" cutting your finger nails is also murder, isn't it?
@@willnitschke An adult cutting their nails does not harm or end their life as a biological being composed of cells; an abortion ends the life of a foetus which is also a biological being composed of cells. Cutting your nails destroys a part unlike abortion which destroys the whole. Your analogy is invalid because it is made in terms of non-essential. Cutting one's nails is a cosmetic issue; an abortion is the termination of the existence of a biological being, which barring its different stage of development, is genetically speaking a human being.
And as for the question of moral agency, newborn infants are totally dependent upon their parents for survival, and due to not have sufficiently developed in a cognitive sense cannot be properly classed as moral agents. Rand's view of free will is the choice to think or not to think (more specifically the choice to focus or not focus one's mind) both of which a newborn is unable to do - and yet no one says that it is okay to murder newborns for the sake of the mother.
@@RyanRothwell But all you did there was assume your premise. "A biological being". You need to defend this assertion. Until you do that, you are merely expressing an unfounded opinion.
As for independence, I believe the issue relates to biological dependence, not social.
@@willnitschke a "biological being" is a living organism, from the smallest cell to the most complex animal. Both adult humans and embryoes are multi-celluar organisms - they are both "clumps of cells" - so if it is okay to terminate one clump of cells (an embryo) then it is okay to terminate other, albeit more complex clump of cells (an adult).
My point is that the "clump of cells" bromide evades the fact that on a microscopic level adults are also clumps of cells, even if they have more cells arranged into a more complex configuration.
She’s objectively mistaken on this one: The science of embryology is clear that from the earliest stages of development - from the single cell stage - you were a distinct, living, and whole human being. You weren't part of another human being like skin cells on the back of my hand, you were already a whole living member of the human species even though you have yet to grow and mature. There is no essential difference between you the embryo and you the adult that would justify killing you back then. Differences of size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency are not good reasons for saying you could be killed then but not now.
No sorry, a fertilized egg is not a "whole human being". Clearly anyone who types something that obviously stupid and then claims it's scientifically based, is frankly, mentally deranged by their belief system.
@@willnitschke So, you're triggered by this 'whole human being' because the one fragment of the human experience you want to prioritise doesn't map to the other fragment you want to dismiss. By 'whole human being' he is referring to a distinctively human experience from conception to death. EVERY human being (we know of) begins life at conception and ends at death. For some lives, unfortunately, those events are concurrent and some times we have to choose to prioritise some lives over others. I am not so set against abortion as I am this 'its a valid person when I say it is' dictum. This is a dangerous precedent on so many levels........
@@lzzrdgrrl7379 Nobody is triggered by anything you wrote. You're asserting that a fertilized egg is a human being, but even you comprehend that such an assertion is so obviously idiotic, that you continue to dance around the assertion rather than admit it's stupid, or attempt to defend it, because you obviously can't.
@@willnitschke Here's a thought..... not every idea you don't agree with is stupid....'>......
@@lzzrdgrrl7379 Here's another thought. A fertilized egg is not a human being. That's an empirical fact. If you don't want your feelings hurts, don't type stupid things at people. And then when you're called out, post insults and sulk about it.
There is no grey area here at all. We a talking about two different things. A woman’s right to do with her body what she so chooses; or, a women’s right to take the life of her unborn child. Two separate issues. Why would anyone have the right to kill a living human being - especially one dependent on them? Similarly, why would anyone have the right to kill the mother of a child?
There is nothing to debate here; it is all dissembling and sophistry. ‘My body, my choice’ can only apply to before any act that the woman wishes to impose upon herself. Like having sex. It cannot apply to baby dependent upon her body, but which arose from her choices. No matter how difficult the situation, it can never be right to kill a baby. It has nothing to do to do with the woman. End. Period.
Actually there is a debate here. A fertilized egg doesn't have a brain, therefore is not a human being.
@@willnitschke A fertilised egg is the beginning of life. Your argument is no argument and is specious. When does life begin is the argument that would follow from your statement.
@@Seneca85 A pot plant is alive, so what? The issue is what is human or not human, not what is alive. The fact that you continue to try to misdirect is evidence that your claims are nonsense, correct?
@@willnitschke True: what is human. Possibly we will forever disagree on that. But an analogy of a pot plant ? Now that is a false equivalency if ever I heard one! Do try harder! And be glad your mother did not think of you as a weed! lol Be free 🤔
@@Seneca85 A human requires, at a minimum, a brain. You babbling about moth lava and DNA is insufficient to define humanity. So your claims remain idiotic, sorry.
Remember also that a potentiality is not the equivalent of an actuality, and that a fetus may be regarded as a human being only when it is capable of surviving outside of and independent of the mother’s body. (The Age of Mediocrity ,9:25-9:38). 1981.
This clip is a bit of a mischaracterization of what would be her final stance because it's a point of viability argument she makes. However even with that argument, there are huge flaws in how objective she was. Newborns are not capable of surviving. They need to be taken care of or they will die. They are often not independent of their mothers body because they rely on her antibodies for their immune system for months and they often breastfeed which is a reliance on the mother's body. And that "potential" life moves toward actuality the more medical technology improved. 5-6 months now has 90+ percent viability. Viability is not an objective standard because it changes on subjective standards of how its defined. A 21 week old baby has survived. 22 week old twins survived.That was not possible 40 years ago but its something that is more reliably occurring. Our standards change. Even though she gave a specific definition of viability, I've already pointed out the flaws that make it subjective. Even if we go the full "her body her choice" argument as this video does, that's objectively untrue. The science of it clearly makes it a separate body. The placenta is the only organ linking the two different individuals, which is why even an HIV infected mother can have a child without HIV made even more likely by treatment. The fetus is never part of the mother's body.
It's closest to commensalism, where one species benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped. Though you could argue parasitism in a failed pregnancy or because of unwanted health effects like morning sickness. You can better argue symbiosis because the mom gains things by being pregnant such as social status, joy, or health benefits that are not obvious to anyone who hasn't researched the changes to the body. An Australian study found that the risk of women developing MS drops by half with each child born and is unaffected by time since last birth, suggesting that the protective effect is due to pregnancy and is lifelong. Breastfeeding can help you lose weight and release oxytocin, which reduces stress. Breastfeeding can also lower your risk of stroke, heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure. Pregnancy reduces the risk of several cancers-uterine, ovarian, endometrial, and breast cancers. When women have had pregnancies that have led to birth earlier on in life, it can affect the differentiation of mammary cells, causing them to become less susceptible to carcinogenesis. Temporary post pregnancy relief from menstrual cramping. See the mother gained many things. As for risks, mortality of mothers is down to .03 percent and almost always the fault of a knowable comorbidty these days because it has been down to .009 percent prior when people in the US were healthier. Preeclampsia makes up the difference. And to clarify that we're talking 1.8 percent of those with preeclampsia in developed nations and it's already pretty rare.
The truth is the abortion procedure specifically is irrational selfishness in the modern context. If you chose to have sex, you are choosing to attempt to create another life and get pregnant because that's the objective reality of the purpose of sex. You could use a myriad of contraception, morning after pregnancy termination, or abstain. Everything else is a delusion. Truly involuntary impregnation is definitely a concern but its also more rare in developed nations than dying during pregnancy. Some people put that as an exception and that's a different argument than right to life so maybe with multifactorals, that's a standard that would be objective. However, getting pregnant is a pretty common cause of the false accusations that occur so what verification do we have. DNA tests for incest would actually work. Again this does nothing to refute the child's status as a life to be valued but you have to make a multifactoral argument and argue what is subjectively more important. The mother's free will or the value of life. Usually in cases of even accidental killings, we value the life taken of the freedom of the individual. Drunk driving isn't going to get you out of vehicular manslaughter. Insanity might and pregnancy can cause issues like depression, mood swings, etc., But what about the doctor?
The real difference in Rand's argument we can point out is one's liberty is valued over another's life always. Better the reds be dead. I agree with standing up to your would be oppressors and meeting violence with a defensive violence. Unfortunately, what she fails to consider is a fetus cannot intend to harm you. It can only harm you or not harm you. So your only justification for harming it is if it harms the mother. Taking a life to save a life, including your own, is a moral use of lethal force and can objectively be determined as a certainty or likelihood. Just as being selfish is not always evil and can be good so can altruism be either evil or good. It is good if you hop on a grenade to save others if that's what what you thought was necessary. If not, trying to save yourself is moral. You only have the information you have. In the case of abortion, most have nothing to do with health of the mother, assaults, incest, or any of the argued reasons. It's mostly irresponsible people taking the lives of their children from either lack of knowledge or as if it was contraceptive. Objectively the harsh truth is as follows. Abortion doesn't prevent you from being a mother. It makes you the mother of a dead child.
The passage from the Age of Mediocrity you cite was revised by Rand herself after the fact for publication to reflect her real position. See footnote 7 of my essay "Ayn Rand’s Radical Case for Abortion Rights."
LOL you must be bored… are you writing an essay for a class?
There is no right to murder your child.
But a fertilized egg is not a child.
But if we discovered a couple living cells on the moon or mars, it would be not only considered life but it would be a historical discovery making headlines across the world.
Yet a human being can be disposed of like it’s nothing just because it’s “a couple of cells”.
Imagine if you were put in a coma. Does that mean you’re suddenly void of all your rights?
Should your family terminate you because you may be an inconvenience or financial burden to them in a coma?
Better yet, what if your family knew you were going to wake up in 9 months, just like a baby is born in 9 months?
The notion that an embryo is anything less than a developing human being, and the notion that abortion is a right and not straight up murder is a gross and despicable excuse to act irresponsibly.
Responsible conduct falls just as much on men as it does women.
Depends what you mean by "embryo". Clearly a fertilized egg is not a human being, as one of the preconditions for humanity is to have a brain. This is something even a Christian conservative has, even if they don't use it.
An embryo is a "developing human being" , you say. It is certainly human, and developing. At what point does it become a being? I think that a being is an individual. You cannot "be" if you are dependent on the host body for oxygen, nutrients, life support and protection. Prior to the stage of viability, the embryo is just an appendage of the mother. The number of fingers and toes, heartbeat, brain activity are irrelevant. If it cannot live separately, it's not a being.
@@brianniegemann4788 I don't recall telling anyone what a "developing human being" is. I did point out that to be defined as human, you would require a human brain.
So basically what you're saying is it's perfectly OK to kill a baby 5 minutes before birth because [garbled incoherent nonsense about "appendages"] but it's murder 5 minutes later?
So basically you're a psychopath, correct?
@@brianniegemann4788 yes you can “be” if you are dependent on a hosts body, saying you can’t is like saying embryos don’t exist.
Also you literally say “it’s certainly human”. You’re literally proving my point.
Moreover, I’ve always found this argument of “it’s not a human up to a certain point” ridiculous. The fact of the matter it will be a human regardless of what you believe. To dispose of it is nothing less then murder.
Also by your definition of being, would my example of you being in a coma technically mean you’re not a being? You’re not reliant on a host, but you are reliant on oxygen and supplies from a machine. Would that mean that your family should terminate you even if they knew you were going to wake up?
@@kinggrass689 Thanks for your reply. Those who have a belief that abortion is wrong have a right to believe so under the First Amendment. But passing laws about what others can do with their bodies is another matter, especially when based on their religious beliefs. The Catholics say abortion is murder and a sin; other religions believe differently. I shouldn't be forced to live by a law written to favor one religion over another, it's unconstitutional. I
If I'm in a coma I'm fine with my family pulling the plug. Because by my definition, l would no longer "be" a being, just a corpse with a heartbeat. That attitude might be hard for you to understand, but what I'm in almost a coma but still able to feel agonizing pain? With no way to ask for relief? I'd want my family to show me mercy.
And I'm not proving your point by saying that an embryo is developing into a human BEING. I'm debating my idea of what constitutes a being. An egg can develop into a chicken, or breakfast. But an egg is not a chicken, only the possibility of one. You can find the idea of life developing from one stage to another ridiculous if you like. Nevertheless, that's what happens in the formation of every living thing, including people. Thanks for listening, if you got this far.
Women have the right to choose to abstain from sex in order to live child free.....
If she chooses to have sex then she should deal with the responsibility together with her sexual partner in taking care of the child if created by their union.
Is a fertilized egg a child? How does that work?
I think Rand is completely correct here. Unfortunately, the good people at ARI seem to neglect her remark that she is not talking about "when a baby is formed." Indeed, an embryo, which Rand specifically references here, is not a fully formed infant, but neither is it a fetus. It is also not a zygote, nor is it a blastocyst. But back to the good people at ARI: To post this excerpt with this headline shows either a decided lack of cognitive power or disingenuous intent. I wish they would clarify which it is...
Rather unfair as you're expecting the argument and its proposed solution in the headline. 🤣
🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻
Life is a process from conception to death. Life does not start when one is born...
Just as things have value a priori- that is the premise of agriculture, btw- so does life.
People can make choices- self-ownership - and suffer the consequences, but it does not mean that they have the right to what they choose. Rand makes a mistake in this premise, between the right to make choices and what one actually chooses as being the right.
She clearly had an emotional attachment to this subject because she probably made that choice herself- which is beyond the point to her argument, anyway.
She wasn't absolutely clear in her reasoning about this, just has she was not about statism- I believe she remained a statist her entire life.
Objectivists remaining statists is a contradiction in their reasoning which they do not address...
My pot plant is a live, so what? The debate is not about what is alive versus what is dead, it's about when does humanity arise? If you can't understand the framework, it's clear you have nothing of value to express, except your arse pain, sorry.
@@willnitschke yes, plant life is exactly the same as human life, right.?
Yes, of course...
@@willnitschke when does humen life emerges? What would define it?
ALL Life starts at conception!
PERIOD!
It is not a matter of agreement, it is a fact!
Rand was right about most things but NOT about the state or abortion!
@@silvanabaralha8665 *plant life is exactly the same as human life, right*
Correct, it isn't, which is exactly my point. Because you have no logical arguments, you use the term "life" in your arguments, rather than human life. Which is why you use the phrase "human life" in one sentence, then switch to "life" in another, then go back to "human life". Because if you used the term "human life" consistently as you should, then your sentences come out looking nonsensical, which is why you attempt to employ this very silly rhetorical trick.
I mean, you are now so confused, you're actually refuting yourself and agreeing with me that you're claims are stupid. 😅
@@silvanabaralha8665 *when does humen life emerges? What would define it? ALL Life starts at conception!*
A human being requires a brain, at a very minimum. A fertilised egg doesn't have a brain. (Although you're doing a good job of pushing back on that, by demonstrating your own lack of one.)
If the definition of humanity is "life", the human life clearly begins before conception, because the unfertilized egg is "alive" and so are the "sperm", correct?
Typing stupid stuff at me and insisting it's not stupid with exclamation marks, just makes you look even more stupid, sorry.
I'll strongly disagree. Potential human??? No, this is a human growing inside the mother that has a right to live.
A human being requires at a minimum, a brain. And a fertilized egg doesn't have one, sorry.
Do you think it changes throughout the pregnancy? Granted nearly all abortions occur before any significant brain development @@willnitschke
@@spectrepar2458 Of course it changes during pregnancy.
When does a fetus become a baby? And if it's at birth, then is last minute abortion acceptable?
Depending on who is writing the comment that's either at conception or some time prior to college graduation.
Birth is when the fetus becomes individuated. Before that it cannot carry out the most basic life functions without being connected to the woman.
@@VinnyBloo Why does birth cause a "fetus" to "individuate". This is another empty assertion. Is it a magical thing? Like the way religious types assume conception is magical?
@@willnitschkeThen the woman should be able to remove it from her body…..since her organs do not belong to the fetus or is not the fetus own organ. 👍
@@ShowMeSomething1 So you're asserting it's OK to kill babies because it's an inconvenience to the mother? Does that make you an extremist?
I disagree with her on this one.
While I understand her stance of not allowing others to tell you what to do, I also differ from her here. After a few weeks the bunch of cells has a formed heart and it beats, it is a living thing, just inside and developing. True also that there is no guarantee of and embryo becoming a birthed human. Seems this should be the parents' decision, since their lives are so affected, and yet there are many good couples who would adopt a baby in a second, thus avoiding killing a fetus. Such a difficult thing.
Do you disagree strongly enough that you would be willing to detain a pregnant woman against her will for 9 months in order to make sure that her pregnancy results in a birth?
If you aren’t willing to do that, what’s to prevent that woman from using a coat hanger on herself? Just how hardcore is your anti-abortion belief?
@@Shozb0t Does everything have to be all or nothing? Destroying a fertilized egg is equivalent to killing a baby a moment before birth? Your opinions seem very hysterical to me, sorry.
@@willnitschke
To a pregnant woman (especially if the pregnancy is unwanted), this is of extreme importance. They are not automatic birthing machines. They are people. They deserve to be in control of their own reproduction. Claiming that you have the power and authority to force them to carry the feetuus to term is both bizarre and frightening. A woman’s womb is her concern, not society’s, not yours. And if you are concerned about a possible baby shortage, that concern is highly exaggerated. There will always be plenty of women who choose to have babies, even ones who previously chose to aabbort them. Just mind your own business and pursue other concerns. Perhaps you could focus on child abuse, child molestation, child kidnapping, SIDS, etc. in other words, worry about the ones who have been born already.
@@Shozb0t So you're saying murder is perfectly acceptable if it's done by certain people and not others, correct?
She’s so right about this
If life is not important and precious ,than what is?
It's not life that's the issue, it's human life. Is a fertilized egg a human? When someone ducks the issue, that is a tacit admission their position is shaky.
Bravo. Well said
It’s fascinating someone who advocates the rights of the individual over the group, fails to understand how individuals are made.
Before you get a breathing baby, you have a baby in the womb ready to be delivered, before that a baby who is in the second trimester, before that a baby in the first trimester, before that conception when the egg is fertilized.
How can you arbitrarily pick a date within a complete system and say that is the date it lives?
If, then logic leads to only one conclusion… a life begins at conception.
You said so ".... individuals are made...." When they're being "making themselves" those are potential and Rights pertain only to Individuals.... Btw an embryo or fetus is not s baby nor even a human being.
Life begins at conception? There is life in the whole process but that doesn't make an embryo gain Rights.
Individuals almost always have superior rights over groups. This is because individuals exist, and groups are abstractions. If you're claiming groups have rights but the individuals who make up those groups don't, then you're just confused.
*How can you arbitrarily pick a date within a complete system and say that is the date it lives*
You can't. But that doesn't alter the fact that a fertilized egg is not a human being and a baby is. Hence, the pragmatic solution here is to error on the side of non-humanness.
It takes a special kind of dumb, ignorance, or willingness to come to your conclusions.
You definitely need Jesus. Seek Him and you will be found. John 3:16, 1 John 1:9.
@@jedward635 Your hurt feelings and angry insults suggest you're actually the one who "needs Jesus".
I agree with her on this. Hot take i know
Ayn Rand... Dropping Mic and agree with the lib.
To deny that an embryo is alive
is a blatant rejection of the obvious, an arrant irrationality.
An irrationality which involves a stolen concept, for if the embryo wasn't living, the issue of abortion would simply not exist at all.
Embryos are living human beings and as such, have the right to live.
And whoever has placed someone in the position of depending on her for his survival has the obligation to ensure said survival until such dependency can end.
There are cases where people fall under unvoluntary obligations, such as civil liability for accidental damage to others' property; the obligation to carry pregnancy until adoption becomes possible is exactly of the same kind.
No one argues that embrio is not alive, pay attention.
She never said it isn’t alive. Clearly it is. It’s just not a reason to change the hierarchy of living>unborn. Luckily Rand makes the distinction here about “fully formed”. Obviously aborting a formed child is evil.
There are human rights, there are no embryo rights or "future human" rights.
@@ab_c4429 are you "fully formed" when you are 3 years old?
@ab_c4429 What is the difference between a "fully formed" child and a human in the beginning of their life cycle?
What does "fully formed" mean? At what age do we stop growing?
Both are innocent.
Both have the Right to Life.
Why does that change depending on the stage of development?
DNA is formed a few days after inception I believe. Which means it is a human being almost immediately
DNA doesn't give you rights.
@@tennoio1392 I thought every human being has rights?
@@someone-fs6ix Does having Human DNA make you a human? Every cell, tissue, and organ of mine has human DNA. But, they aren't human.
@@hellothere-hx5by you clearly don't understand biology well enough
Lol
The very same Ayn Rand, whom has claimed that European colonists had the right to invade and take land inhabited by American Indians.
So you're implying the Right to Property? or maybe sovereignty, to a society that not only didn't have Rights but also couldn't grasp the concepts of Rights. Arrive first doesn't create the concept of Property Right. Man's mind creates it. It's a complex topic I know that and I am not preaching genocide. I'm just separating natives "Americans" with the notion of Rights
@@NahuelOl57 say that to the civilized Cherokees whom were forced out of their ancestral lands by the U.S. Government, or to the Dakota Cheyene, and Sioux "Peace Treaties with the United States
Government was continuously broken like that of "The Black Hills" which was their sacred lands.
Because they have a different culture, language or way of life it didn't mean that they didn't know of the concept of rights, and liberty. In fact, the U.S. sense of Liberty, Justice, and Rights are most hypocritical with a double tier of justice for those non-whites in those days.
So, spare me your spew.
@@CarlosGarcia-fi4yu No, they did not know the concept of Rights and Liberty.. not even most people today understand such concepts. Just read Ayn Rand if you're interested..... Btw I was clear on my point it's just to remark that those societies didn't have Rights.... Or maybe tomorrow I will discover they were explicit every human being has Right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Any history book you recommend where it's said that. Chau
@@NahuelOl57 what's to know about this Russian born atheist? And how did you know they didn't have such concept? Because they had a different concept, and or culture?
@@CarlosGarcia-fi4yu "they had a different concept"? You're right reality is different for every society how did I not see that..... Sarcasm..... Start reading yourself btw. "born atheist"? "born"? Flasheaste mal..... Well, chau
Murder is an absolute. Biggest L from rand. Based on her interpretation my most charitable thing to say is that she didn't understand the science of life.
But you have to establish if it's murder or not, first. You need to argue your premise, not assume it.
@@willnitschke Life is a process. It begins in conception and ends upon death. Doesn't start arbitrarily in any given phase of development, because it always requires the previous one..until conception is reached, if you go backwards...
@@silvanabaralha8665 The discussion is not about "life". Your pot plant is alive. It's when do we become human.
@@willnitschke There is no such thing as "becoming" human! That is why a plant is not human and never will be...
And why is the discussing not about life, about human life, and rather the concept of what is human, as if it could be separated from life???
@@silvanabaralha8665 So you're saying humans aren't created inside a female body from cells? It's all just magic...? Are you a member of an aboriginal tribe and missed the scientific revolution?
Rand had a bad habit of not recognizing the limits of her philosophy. There isn't actually enough content in objectivism to conclude what the correct view on abortion must be.
No, it's pretty clear. A fetus is not an individual therefore has no rights. It can not act to sustain its own existence, let alone use reason.
She's so right. And she doesn't even get into the best argument for her case here: Rights are freedoms of individual action. Government exists solely to protect individual rights. Individuation occurs at birth. Government has no role with respect to fetuses, as they are not individuated persons. That is the sole domain of the woman carrying the fetus.
And I laughed out loud to hear her say "bitches". Love it.
Rights "begin at birth" ...because...? You says so....?
Not really an argument, is it?
@@willnitschke Which actual statement of mine do you disagree with and why? What is your definitive alternative statement?
@@willnitschkeare you serious? Haven't you read it "......... freedom of individual action....." How the hell is that hard to understand
@@BuckPowers I don't disagree with any of your arguments because you presented none. You had an opportunity to present an argument (not merely an assertion) but continue to fail to do so.
@@NahuelOl57 You're very confused. I asked how he had determined the precise moment at which humanness manifest. He offered 'birth'. But was unable to explain his reasoning. Presumably he thinks birthing is where magical things happen.
What a wicked generation we live in. Why does our country think it is moral to dispatch little babies? It is not our bodies, and the little babies have rights to life too. God isn't happy with our country, and we all need to turn from our sins and turn back to Jesus. I pray that Jesus opens all our eyes to truth before any more of our race ends up in hell. God bless and help us all.
The issue is whether they are 'little babies' or clumps of cells. You can't assume evil simply by asserting your premise as a belief.
@@willnitschke Don't be dumb we all know that it is a child. The issue is we are so sinful that we will even dispatch a little innocent baby. That is evil. I pray Jesus opens all our eyes to truth before and more little Babies are vacuumed down the toilet.
@@kevinposselt5428 No clearly we 'don't all know' a fertilized egg is a child, sorry. What you're saying is you're emotionally invested in your magical sky God and anyone who rejects your fantasy world is evil. This is not a good argument, sorry.
@@kevinposselt5428 Whats amusing to me is all these so called atheists and objectivists failing to follow basic logic. "personhood" is a theological spiritual term (Your wheelhouse), if we speak purely of science there is no such thing scientifically as a person. There are humans, which we can easily define and that definition must include the unborn (no definition that doesn't accurately describes all born humans and thus is scientifically invalid.). If basing law in secular logic then laws must apply to humans, therefore to murder an unborn human is to murder a human.
In reality the argument from abortion stems not from logic but from a religion of evil.
@@willnitschke We all know in our heart that when you have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant a child is on the way. being ignorant to the facts will not help you in a court of law. The problem is we all our evil and love our sin. We are self-centered and are willing to take life so that our lives are free to do whatever we want. We all will be judged. Justice will be served. Make sure you have someone to pay your fines for the wages of sin is death. Whether you believe it or. doesn't matter. God bless.
I agree. But the much bigger conflict of individual rights comes days, weeks, even months before the birth.
Don't Murder Your Children.
Someone has to say it!
Don't Confuse A Children With A Fetus Or Embryo.
@@NahuelOl57 Life is a process. It begins in conception and ends upon death. Doesn't start arbitrarily in any given phase of development, because it always requires the previous one..until conception is reached, if you go backwards...
@@silvanabaralha8665 get a life people I don't give a fo. Your words don't change reality and if you're interested you'll find out that I already answered that or maybe not. I'm not indifferent with reality but I am with people who avoid or try to mold it to their whimps. Chau saludos desde Argentina haha
@@NahuelOl57 neither do your words change reality! I just stated FACTS. You knew what those are, right?...
Rand is wrong on two counts. God, and abortion.
Abortion, yes. God, no. Once you understand Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, atheism makes sense and theism doesn't.
Glad to see there's someone else expressing this observation 🙏❤️🇺🇲
@@lights473 yup... like gender spectrums and transformers make sense lol
Someone is not wrong because your feelings are hurt.
@@willnitschke absolutely correct although irrelevant to their statement. Typically Randian conflation to insert strawman... atheists have no claim to make and nothing to offer human flourishing, just denial of our spiritual reality and ego worship. No love in that...
It sounds like she would support abortion for around the first 5 weeks
Behold, the wickedness of selfishness.
I did not observer any 'wickedness'. Maybe that happened in your imagination.
How is taking charge of ones own body, health, life, and family selfish??
@@ShowMeSomething1 I suppose it would be if it was at the expense of others. However, when someone tosses around the word 'selfish' what they sometimes mean is 'you're not doing what I want you to do'. Turns out they have inverted the meaning of the word. 😉
Ayn Rand literally wrote a book called "The Virtue of Selfishness"
I wonder what our imaginary Gods say about this