Flutterby™! : GOP reconfiguring Rand 2012-08-11 15:15:35.671832+00

GOP reconfiguring Rand

2012-08-11 15:15:35.671832+00 by ebradway 12 comments

As y'all know, I haven't been a fan of Ayn Rand since around age 19. There was a period from about age 15 to 19 where I was the guy handing out copies of The Fountainhead. And I did go to the Atlas Shrugged movie on opening night with a friend (who is still a devotee). To be clear, I don't call myself an "Objectivist" but I've read most of her books and appreciate Rand's position in the canon of Western Philosophy.

What I don't get is how Paul Ryan and Ron Paul can square their position on abortion with Rand's philosophy? It seems pretty clear to me that Objectivism would leave the abortion choice up to the woman. And, at most, expect the state to ensure safe and open access to the necessary medical procedures.

Sure, there's the whole issue of the unborn child's rights. And I could see Ayn Rand's philosophical mind struggling with the concept: what rights does an embryo have in utero? I'd have to read back through more of her books than I want to, but I strongly suspect that Rand would side with the mother because her sentience can be objectively established.

Sonofabitch, I thought the Android was better than iOS for such things. Damn. think I fixed it.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-15 15:49:48.592752+00 by: TheSHAD0W [edit history]

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-15 14:31:06.704195+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-13 18:49:48.869519+00 by: petronius [edit history]

Re Exodus: Thumpers would point out that Mosaic law also demands you keep kosher, yet they don't. The New Covenant replaced the original one. Rand's thought is a starting point, not an end point.

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

So the destruction of the fetus, according to Mosaic law, is not a sin, nor a crime, but a civil tort, to the extent that it offends. (Ignoring the "woman's husband" archaism) Amazing how many thumpers ignore the text.

I don't remember specifics of Rand's take, but I have always taken Objectivism in the light that the sentience of the fetus is irrelevant: the creature exists only thought the support of the mother, and the mother has the right to withdraw that support. To say the fetus has any "right to life" says that the mother doesn't, which is antithetical to the core of Objectivism.

But, of course, the GOP picks and chooses which Rand it wants to hold as a model.

Shadow: I hadn't looked at Ron Paul's voting record on abortion, so I assume you are correct. That would place Ron Paul in a similar position to Jimmy Carter when Roe v. Wade was decided. As President, he was not supposed to allow his personal convictions to supercede the law of the land, as decided by SCOTUS.

Ron Paul is morally anti-abortion, but he has never proposed banning it; rather, he is against government funding for it, which is entirely within libertarian (much less Randian) philosophy.