Comment: Ayn Rand defines a human

(See in situ)

Ayn Rand defines a human

Ayn Rand defines a human being as an living organism with a "volitional conceptual consciousness" which is certainly true of all the seven billion human beings walking the earth once they are born.

She considers a fertilized ovum or a human embryo or human fetus as a "potential" human being not an actual human being until it is born. In her response to the Pope's encyclical entitled "Humanae Vitae" she declared that a woman's whim was sufficient justification for the termination of her pregnancy.

There is a distinction between a potential human being and an actual human being by her definition but most thinking people make the distinction of "viability outside the womb." The vast majority of abortions are done long before that anyway. Most late term abortions are done because of concerns about the life of the mother who might be suffering with life threatening conditions at the time.

The mere possession of DNA or dividing cells is nonsense when one is talking about the will of the pregnant woman who is the victim of rape or incest. Those who declare that irrelevant are heartless and cruel to force a rape victim or incest victim to remain pregnant against her will in such cases.

Those of us opposed to government intervention in the marketplace should support the right of a pregnant woman to make such decisions for herself and get off ones high horse to be dictating self righteously sounding like inquisitors from the Dark Ages.

We are supposed to be about the rights of the individual and for individual freedom and Ron Paul sounds like an unthinking religious fanatic on this one conceding reason to the Democrats on this issue who advocate properly for a woman's right to choose.

I am a prochoice atheist for Ron Paul because he is correct on issues other than his abortion stand. Religion makes no sense as faith is a willingness to accept things as true for which there is no rational basis. You people don't seem to get it that there is no supernatural realm, no life after death, no meeting your dead relatives after you die to spend eternity with in some afterlife. You are like children who believe in a fairy tale. Grow up.

If you want a philosophy for living on earth read Ayn Rand's fiction and non fiction. She is an advocate of reason all the way and her moral standard is Man's Life on Earth. She holds that human beings are not sacrificial animals but have a right to their own lives here in the real world.

Read George H. Smith's Atheism: The Case Against God, Christopher Hitchen's God Is Not Great, Richard Dawkin's The God Delusion and Sam Harris' The End Of Faith.

There are no contradictions in the universe. That is a restatement of the Law of Identity. Things are what they are. It is meaningless to consider that a microscopic fertilized ovum has a right to its life while the pregnant woman has no choice in the matter. Read Man's RIghts in either The Objectivist Newsletter or The Virtue of Selfishness or Capitalism:The Unknown Ideal.

Ron Paul recommended that we all "study." He is aware that the Democrats are mistaken with their theories of economics which justify deficit spending and government intervention in the marketplace. But in order to educate the youth we have to have rational arguments which means to learn in detail an entire economic theory of how the free market operates based in part on the concept of the rights of man.

That means studying the works of Ludwig von Mises, Henry Hazlitt and Murray Rothbard. All available for free at

Like it or not there is an ideological struggle going on and in order to help the cause of liberty each of us needs to read and understand. Admittedly advocates of interventionism may not be willing to listen to reason because they have an agenda. They think they are right.

Read the article in yesterday's Wall Street Journal by a liberal on the op-ed page where he spells out all the good things the liberals have done over the decades including the Roosevelt New Deal programs. Of course people have benefitted by those programs because when some of us are sacrificed, meaning taxed, others will be the recipients of that taxation.

To the Liberals or Progressive's way of thinking those of us unwilling to be taxed or for others to be taxed are evil, selfish and greedy. They see us who advocate for reduced spending as evil because they think of all the good that can be done with the money they want to take from us or from the producers or the rich but including all who pay taxes. They are willing to tax and spend and to do all the good that giving money to the beneficiaries of this spending. Pell grants, food stamps, welfare, Medicare, Medicaid, disabilility etc.

Oddly enough it is the Christian ethic of Altruism which justifies their practicing human sacrifice. It is the idea that one should be willing to hold other's Needs above one's own which grants a moral sanction to the Democrats policies. Isn't it true that we are taught from childhood that we should hold the needs of others above our own. That the essence of being good is the willingness to hold the interests of others above our own.

Read The Objectivist Ethics in Ayn Rand's The Virtue of Selfishness.

The Ends do not justify the Means. We are opposed to the involuntary means the Democrats are willing to support in order to help others. Coercive charity is not good it is tyranny.


And see Atlas Shrugged part two on October 12, 2012. Better still read the book first.

No Man's need constitutes an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill that need.