Posted on 01/05/2005 11:22:24 AM PST by annyokie
I haven't EVER done anything "bad" enough,that I should have to be tortured by having to read any of Rand's works,now,covert to cover.
I'm delighted that you enjoyed my use of the word "dreadful".It suits,to a "T",Rand's scribblings. The English language is rich and varied;it's really heartbreaking that so few people use much of it now.
Oooooooooohhhhhhhhhh...Conrad! Now THERE was a writer!
Cue the music. LOL
The Objectivists can never explain how reality came to be nor do they attempt to.
The strength in their system lies in the fact of free will and acceptance of reality as reality.
Most philosophical systems do not even have that much right.
The breath that the infant first takes is indicative of its independence from the mother.
It is the independence from the mother that makes it human (according to those who are pro-abortion)
Once independent from the mother, it is considered 'human'.
That is why Roe made a point in making abortion linked to how likely the fetus could survive without the mother.
Past three months, the fetus was to be regarded as a potential human and given the chance to survive.
The pro-abortion crowd took the Roe vs Wade decision to mean unconditional abortion which it did not.
So, that is where the problem came in.
Roe did not grant unconditional abortion, only those in the first three months because it was not likely the fetus would live outside the womb.
It was never intended for abortions to be used on formed fetus's except if the physical health of the mother was at risk, and that is a rare case.
You are correct.
Now with technology, human life can be pushed back even more then before.
Your point on the mother deciding on wheather the 'fetus'is a 'baby'or a mere 'fetus' is why I am opposed to abortion.
No human has the right to decide that, only God does.
Your reasoning is flawed mainly because the pro abortion argument is flawed both morally and legally.
There are several reasons I hold this opinion. First, an organism's cognitive abilities are an inherent property, although it is a property that is not fully expressed until later in life. Question yourself however...are our cognitive abilities ever fully expressed?
Second, how does one who is simply 9 months old have rights but one who is 2 or 3 weeks old does not? My nature and identity have not changed. How can the law differentiate? It cannot.
Finally, a new born cannot speculate or reason or function independently and yet our society protects that newborn. Similarly, society must protect the pre born child.
The question of human life is a theological one.
When is the human soul given life.
Is it indirect, through the man and woman, or direct after birth.
I take the position that human soul life begins when God gives breath to the new born child directly at birth.
That is when the soul is made alive and becomes a person in the eyes of God.
Until then it is a potential person.
Again, I oppose abortion because it makes the woman decide if the child is going to live or not and she does not have that right.
"...I oppose abortion because it makes the woman decide if the child is going to live or not and she does not have that right."
Then your principle argument against infanticide is a legal one. The difference between our oppositions to infanticide/abortion is that I am against for religious AND constitutional ones. You place too much emphasis on the intake of oxygen while I place emphasis on genetics (legal) and theological. However if you review this link you will see an overwhelming amount of evidence for a theological pro life position:
http://www.biblebelievers.com/Stocker1.html
No, it is philosophical.
A woman cannot play god.
Thus, she does not have the right to decide if a fetus is 'just'a fetus or is it human.
Regarding the link, thank you.
I am a constant visitor to that site.
As for the arguments first, from the scriptures.
Those are persons looking back as persons and thus, it is very difficult to express themselves as anything but as persons.
Second, regarding the issue of life being in the blood.
That is an interesting view, but the question is not is their physical life in the womb but is it a person as such (having a living soul)
Again, at birth something happens, "The jelly in the umbilical cord begins to swell immediately upon contact with air, restricting flow to the placenta and forcing the infant's blood to its own lungs for oxygen. As the baby gasps and air sweeps into the lungs and fills the thousands of tiny air sacs, a first cry is vocalized." From these statements we can see that oxygen is already in the, blood, the life is in the blood, the unborn baby is alive BEFORE he is born,
Now, from this statement, although the author is saying that the oxygen is in the blood, the oxygen that is coming into the lungs is from the outside.
When it is said that a baby must be 'viable' it is not suggesting it be able to live without help, but rather that it be able to breath on its own.
Concerning the rest of the article I agree with the author's rejection of reasons for abortions.
And I am glad to see that he states that abortion must include criminal charges against both the Dr. and woman.
Even Alan Keyes has not been consistent on this.
The article has given me some things to think about regarding when life begins. Thanks.
Frank O'Connor was Ayn Rand's husband. Didn't you know that? And why not?
Whom of Branden's wives had children?
I could check his book, Judgement Day, if you want more details
Ofcourse I knew that, what makes you think I didn't?
I have read all of her works and the biographies that have come out on her, both from the Brandens and the one's approved by Peikoff.
Did I misread this?
Someone had said that Frank O'Conner had been married before he married Rand and in fact, was married when Rand met him.
I guess I should have put it a better way.
Someone said? You read Barbara Branden's book and didn't know this? As with most of those on this thread, you don't know what you are talking about.
Didn't know what?
As I said, I was responding to the idea that O'Conner was married when he met Rand, which he wasn't-was he?
Now, what is it you think you know that I do not, about Rand?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.