Friday, June 4, 2010

Why I am anti-abortion, and don't care if you are not.

"Pathetic Insignificant Bitch" deleted me today because I posted an anti-abortion picture.  He called me intellectually dishonest. I am positive I could really not give a flying fornication whether  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  is a friend of mine or not, but when I am accused of "intellectual dishonesty" I take offense at that. I posted no opinion about the picture, I just put it on my page because I found it to be informative, and I believe that many of the pro-abortion folks think of this as a medical procedure the likes or removing a cyst, or a tumor. I suppose  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  is a pro-abortion guy, who does not want to face the fact that what he supports is the removal of a little individual human. DO you hear that  "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch" ??? A little individual, the smallest minority, a being with it's own unalienable rights, among those being LIFE, LIBERTY, and THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS.

I don't play in the "Pro-life, or Pro-choice" lexicon because I find both labels incorrect. The procedure is called abortion, and they occur naturally, and that is sad, but the abortions I am concerned about ore the abortion induced by another person. People are either pro-abortion or anti-abortion. This whole "pro-choice" label is stupid on the face, and dis-honest in it's use. Whenever anyone uses the term "Pro-choice" the user is already submitting to an untruth. By calling a living individual a "Choice" they are granting ownership to the mother. If one is "pro-choice" meaning that they are allowing themselves to make a choice whether an individual being lives or dies, then why are they inconsistent? If it is okay to kill this individual being at 30 days of life, why is it then not okay to kill the individual at 6 years of life? Does an individual gain more right to life as they grow? So to be "intellectually honest" let's stop by being dishonest in the "pro-choice" cutesy label.

You are either pro-abortion, or anti-abortion.

I dont really care if someone is pro-abortion. I disagree with them on this position, and would try to persuade them towards my position. However, someone making a stand against me because I am anti-abortion is stupid. This one issue is the most dividing issue in our country. A FB friend compares it to slavery, and I think she has nailed it square on the head. Slavery was the most divisive issue of it's day, and although there were many that argued for it's continuation, and many would still agree today, that  they had valid reasons for trying to keep the despicable institution, however, just because they had  valid reasons, does not change the fact that human beings can not own another human being as property. So if it is a truth that one can not own another individual human, what gives a mother the right to kill and dispose of another human. I suppose the grand question is when does the dividing cells become a human? I have no idea. Frankly I would like to think that as soon as the cells have a heartbeat that that is life. Maybe your instinct is that it is as soon as sperm meets egg, implants and begins to divide, but surely it is not 4 months in, with eyes, ears, nose, and arms, and toes.

Unfortunately, there is a religious aspect to this whole issue, and I feel that the reason this is unfortunate is that there are many people who would come off as religious zealots with this issue, and others that run away from anything that has to do with religion at all. I am not anti-abortion because of religion. I personally follow Jesus, but I would not say that it has any bearing on my opinion of this. Contrary to what "Pathetic Insignificant Bitch"  has said, I have chosen the anti-abortion side of this debate because of the rights of the individual. It is exactly Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, and Objectivism that led my to change my mind on this. Why is the rights of a women allow that individual to kill another individual. The second individual is the responsibility of the first individual. I contend that the act of having sex is an implied contract between two people. These two people are agreeing that they are responsible enough to have sex, and accepts the responsibility of the act. One of the side effects of sex is pregnancy. There are many different ways to stop this from happening, but the only 100% way of preventing pregnancy is not having sex. If after a woman has taken preventative measures, and the man has taken preventative measures, and a pregnancy still happens, I would look at this as a medical miracle, and not have the guts to kill the miracle child. I do not believe however that most women, and men who engage in sex, actually take the precautions that could be taken to prevent the pregnancy. Therefore, whenever a pregnancy occurs, that individual has rights. In my opinion the only valid reasons for an abortion is in the cases of incest, rape, or if the mother's life is in danger. Otherwise, it is the mother's responsibility to carry the baby,taking care of the baby during the gestation period, and deliver the baby. If the child is unwanted, then it can be given up for adoption at that time. There are thousands of groups that will take a baby for adoption. This living being inside a woman is not a tumor to get rid of. It is not a cyst that can kill the mother. What can possible be a valid reason for killing this little individual? The way I see it besides the reasons I gave above, the only reason that an abortion is performed is the convenience and comfort of the mother. And one's convenience and discomfort do not override another's right to Life.

{Updated 10-12-12}

So why do I make the exceptions for Life of the mother, Rape and Incest? Because with Rape and Incest (at least incest involving a minor) are not done willingly. The female has NOT consented, and therefore is NOT responsible. Is that baby/fetus/little humanoid less valuable than another baby/fetus/little humanoid? No, however it does not exist as a result of irresponsibility, but of instead an unjust act. Personally I feel like it should be preserved as well, but I will not make a negative moral judgement against a victim for deciding to kill it.

Why life of the mother is excluded? Because if B/F/LH may kill the mother, then it's the mother's right to defend themselves, as an individual. There are women who will choose to sacrifice themselves for their baby, and that is beyond admirable, but I would not blame a woman for having an abortion to defend her own life, anymore than I would blame a person who kills a bad guy breaking into their house.

{End of Update 10-12-12}

 Saying that I am being intellectually dishonest, or that  I am not an "Objectivist" because I hold this view is a lot over the line. a) I've checked the Objectivist Handbook(doesn't exist) and there is nothing in there about abortion. b) I have not claimed to be an Objectivist, a Christian, an Atheist, a Republican, a Libertarian, a Randian, a Paulian or any other ist or ian. I have "owned" to be a part of the John Galt Party of One. Not the Ayn Rand Party, or the Atlas Shrugged Party or the Ron Paul Party. The John Galt Party of One, which basically means that I can believe in whatever the fuck I want.

So really, who has put more thought into this than me?


  1. Ragnar:

    Your premise that an abortion is removing the littlest minority is touching and emotionally provoking- but does not appeal to my rational mind.

    My rational mind: The part responsible for objective reasoning; tells me that an abortion that is preformed before brain activity is in fact a medical removal of tissue - with the potentiality of becoming an individual. The potential of something is not the same thing as it being something.

    I am sorry, but I have had this discussion so many times I just cannot bring myself to argue this anymore. I will however post a passage that gives the gist of my rebuttal.

    "But the human part of the brain—the cortex—is not fully developed, as shown by "brain waves" on an EEG, until very late in gestation; in fact the EEG continues to change and mature into childhood. Indeed, the "individuating" function of a person's brain doesn't start to come into existence until the outer surface of the cortex begins to develop those deep furrows, grooves, and convolutions (sulci and gyri) that make a human brain look like a walnut, unlike the smooth brains of other animals. The furrows and grooves are what enable our brains to have millions more cells and connections between them than other animals, and so create our humanity. And the precise configuration of the grooves and convolutions are part of what determines our individuality; why, for instance, indentical twins have different personalities, and even, perhaps, why Einstein was a genius. However, these structures don't begin to form until the last 2 months of pregnancy.

    So I have no objection to saying that "a human life" or "human personhood" begins when brain waves are measured on an EEG. That is well into the second half of pregnancy"

  2. 1984, page 32, definition of Doublethink: "....To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies..."

    I read that entire article Curio, and what keeps coming to mind is the objective reality (that I'm sure you have a 'rational' 'intellectual' argument for me being crazy) is that when I lay on my 4 months pregnant daughter's bed and sing into her belly, that baby suddenly moves. He travels around and bumps and we can physically feel the moving, she can much more than me. That's the objective reality.

    Also, read what scientists thought of blacks regarding their "physical" inferiority in 1851:

    There were pretty good scientific arguments (based in math) that the world was flat not too long ago, also.

    Curio, don't let science tell you that what is sitting in front of your face doesn't exist or what you're seeing is wrong.

    We can put a man on the moon but we can't cure cancer. Why? Because a large segment of our economy would collapse (hospital/doctors/nurses/PHARMACEUTICALS). Science often sacrifices facts (AND LIVES) for the convenience of society, to further their own agenda, and to line their own pockets. We must observe science with a critical eye.

  3. Ann....Abortion is not immoral! I do not care what science tells me, my spiritual beliefs (Which are none of your business) guide me, I tell me what I should and should not do...not science...not another man, women or child! Not some invisible man in the sky...not some ancient text written by god knows who (pun definitely intended) But my own inner feelings about what is and what is not ok....all of your hype and rhetoric about what some stupid fricken movie has brainwashed you into believing is not going to change the fact that I believe what I believe and whether you or anyone else likes it or not, they cannot refute my argument that an abortion is the removal of a potential independent life, not an already independent life! Telling one human that they have to continue to be a feeding tube for another as consequences of their actions when they have alternative consequences to choose from is sick and insane! Not to be rude, but I find you using a stupid propaganda movie to substantiate your beliefs in real life, fricken scary!

  4. Ann: Also in regards to your objective reality about this>>
    "is that when I lay on my 4 months pregnant daughter's bed and sing into her belly, that baby suddenly moves. He travels around and bumps and we can physically feel the moving, she can much more than me. That's the objective reality."

    However emotionally touching that may really is completely irrelevant!

    So the potential human inside that belly moves to stimuli...big fricken deal! What is so fascinating about that?

  5. Again I must disagree with you my friend, from the very beginning your argument is flawed. Your entire argument rests on the idea that the fetus is an individual with rights.. and much of this is derived from the fact that is merely alive and responds to outside stimuli. However, I would argue that this is not enough.. a dog, a cow, a chicken, a rat, a spider, can do all of the things a fetus can, with the exception of eventually becoming a person (I won't debate the issue of potential personhood here, it is irrelevant) and yet we kill these animals every day without any thought towards the morality of it. The simple answer to the abortion issue is: Yes abortion is killing.. but it is killing something that is the property of the mother and father, and has no rights of its own.. therefore no injustice or immoral act has been committed.

  6. Ah , you are quick to point out what you consider the flaw in my argument, but you do so with an opinion Colin. Your opinion is that it has no rights. You even equate it to a dog, a cow, a chicken etc, but I present to you that these things also have rights. If a dog has no rights, it would be okay to torture it. Yet dog fighting is illegal? Why? Because the dog has a right to not be tortured. Just because it is not a human right violation, does not mean that something has no rights. The arguments I hear about the "potential personhood" reminds me of the scientific data of the 1830' that said that black people were not the same as white people. That they had no feelings, and were below us, therefore, it was perfectly fine to treat them as property, as you have just assigned the fetus as the "property" of the mother and strangely enough the father. So in your argument, since the fetus is owned by the father, can the father then stop the killing of the fetus, since it is his property?

  7. Ayn Rand did actually mention (I forget which essay book) that she believes a fetus is not a life, but a 'potential' life, and therefore, was pro-choice (or pro-abortion).

    BUT ... any so-called Objectivists that sit on their armchair philosophical high horse and declare you NOT OBJECTIVIST because of your disagreement are tools and mindless slaves.

    I disagree with something Ayn Rand said about handguns, but I proudly carry her philosophical label. I also think lots of so-called Objectivists are cowards.

  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  9. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.