Airplanes!

« The Tea Act of 1773 | Main | Quote of the Day »

March 13, 2009

Rand on Abortion

From Rand's "Of Living Death," published in The Objectivist newsletter, 1968:

An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn).

Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?

I don't think Malkin and Beck and the others truly understand who they're embracing.


Filed under: Ayn Rand || Wingnut Revolution

Digg This Post  Reddit This  Share on Facebook  Add to del.icio.us  Add to Stumble Upon

Posted By Bob Cesca | March 13, 2009 1:50 PM

Comments

I wonder if they know Ayn Rand was an atheistic adulteress as well?

Posted by: The Dogfather at March 13, 2009 2:02 PM

Glenn, Malkin and the wingnuts can't READ or COMPREHEND Ayn Rand's book.

The Bible is the only book that should be read and Glenn was challenging his audience to really understand their faith. He told them that he studied his faith and they should do the same. Plus the government is going to challenge their faith.

If Glenn studied Mormonism and didn't run away clawing his eyes out than it proves he is a space alien.

Posted by: GIthePotato at March 13, 2009 2:08 PM

"I wonder if they know Ayn Rand was an atheistic adulteress as well?"

Not unless it's written on the side of the box of Lipton Tea bags.

Posted by: eve at March 13, 2009 2:09 PM

I sent letters to this effect to every single church in my county, asking them exactly this question: Do you know who the brains were behind the Foundation from which the Guest Opinion of our county paper pours? Apparently the paper got the message; since I started my letter-writing campaign, Guest Opinions cut-and-pasted from the Ayn Rand Institute of Personal Freedoms or Whatever The Fuck have mysteriously disappeared from our local paper.

Ayn Rand was a despicable human being and her philosophy should be exposed for the amoral fuckheadedness that it is.

GO REPUBLICANS!

Posted by: Elvis the Dingeldein™ at March 13, 2009 2:14 PM

I'm glad to see that Malkin and Beck and all the other "Rah-Rah Ayn Rand" douchnozzles are now pro-choice atheists.

Posted by: Packy at March 13, 2009 2:15 PM

Even better, Ayn Rand on The God:

They claim that they perceive a mode of being superior to your existence on this earth. The mystics of spirit call it “another dimension,” which consists of denying dimensions. The mystics of muscle call it “the future,” which consists of denying the present. To exist is to possess identity. What identity are they able to give to their superior realm?

They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out.

Yeah, that sounds like average Republicans on the subject of The God and Holy Whatnots, doesn't it?

Posted by: Elvis the Dingeldein™ at March 13, 2009 2:18 PM

This is what happens when ignoramuses like Malkin and Beck go cherry-picking through philosophy.

Posted by: Jim at March 13, 2009 2:40 PM

Straight from John Galt's radio speech - good job Elvis. You should have copied the whole thing though. It's only 60-something pages, right? Or maybe an audio clip of it beaing read - three hours, or so.

The whole notion is absurd. First, the book is simple minded nonesense. Second, today's whackos claiming to go Galt don't understand the nonsense in the book. And third, none of them would really make the sacrifice required of them to really "go Galt" as the characters in the nonsesne book did. They would have to just disappear, and if they understand this at all, I bet they are afraid no one would miss them/

Posted by: Alan4s at March 13, 2009 2:45 PM

Republicans have always been the party of the superficial. They don't actually read books, they skim them. This has the advantage that the book says anything that you want it to. You get to impose your reality onto it whether or not your reality is in conflict with what the book actually says.

I don't expect any of the tea baggers to actually read 'Atlas Shrugged.' It's not clear that they've ever actually read the Bible (I think not). They just take their leadership's word on what's in these books.

They think Ayn Rand is a Jesus Freak. I don't think they will listen to us when we inform them otherwise even though facts are on our side. They have never let conflicting facts get in the way of their stated position before, so I don't see any reason to expect otherwise now.

Posted by: SillyRatfacedGit at March 13, 2009 2:55 PM

Poor Michael Steele; he actually showed some signs of enlightenment. He almost tried to take a stand for human rights. It is entirely odd to me that Republicans insist that they all clone themselves to be axactly the same-have the exact same terminology for expressing themselves. Why in the world is it so necessary for them to defend cells in the process of organizing within the womb over a child that will die , which happened this week, waiting for breakthroughs in stem-cell cures.

Posted by: danann at March 13, 2009 3:00 PM

Hmmm. I don't like the sound of my last comment it's way too pessimistic.

Bob and Elvis - Thank you for pointing out these very pertinent facts regarding Rand and her self documented beliefs. This certainly shows that the person they are touting as their ideal has beliefs that are way less than compatible with their own.

I think they will ignore these facts as they always do so we are again preaching to the choir. Nothing wrong with that. The choir enjoys a good sermon.

Posted by: SillyRatfacedGit at March 13, 2009 3:03 PM

I know we should not take these polls seriously but since MSNBC will be all over it if Obama does not have a substantial lead thought you might be interested...
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29493093


Also, I have been reading the blog and posts for a couple of months now and I have yet to pick up on why the is repeatedly spelled teh....I saw it in another article on the huffpo and it seems clear there is a meaning behind it to which I am unaware...would someone enlighten me? Thank you in advance

Posted by: LK at March 13, 2009 3:19 PM

Are you stoned?

Posted by: danann at March 13, 2009 3:31 PM

LK -

teh is the way 'the' gets typographically misspelled when one types too quickly. It became a part of leet speak (1337 5p3ak) over ten years ago. leet speak speaker use 'the' and 'teh' interchangeably. Teh is not considered a typo, even when it is.

See Wikinutia for more.

It is very common here because of our Teh Loyal Opposition's overuse of 'The'. George H. W. was defending his son's leagacy and said "You can check The Google and see that I am right."

John McCain inexplicable shoved 'The' in front of everything whether it needed it or not. This was a continuous source of amusement (as we are easily amused (at least I am)) to us. I was surprised when he called Cindy a cunt, not that he called her that, but that he didn't call her The cunt.

The the word flow around here a lot during teh campaign.

Posted by: SillyRatfacedGit at March 13, 2009 3:46 PM

Thank you so much. I knew it was a common misspelling of course but it seemed so intentional on this blog that I figured there must be some meaning behind it that I had not been aware. I appreciate the info and for not insinuating I was stoned. I have been hesitant to ask figuring someone would think it was stupid question. I joined sometime in December so I missed all the witty banter of the election. However, I have been enjoying it since. Thanks again!

Posted by: LK at March 13, 2009 4:04 PM

Has anyone posted these quotes on Malkin's site? I've tried but I can't find the will to jump through all those hoops they set up to be able to comment.

Posted by: Broadway Carl at March 13, 2009 4:28 PM

No worries LK.

Don't be so shy. We don't bite.

I suspect you noticed that parody and satire are favored weapons of many of the regulars here. Since our The Loyal Opposition loved to use 'The' where it was not needed, we parodied that here by exaggeration of the technique. Hence you see nyms like GItheJoe and Elvis The Dingeldein which are actually double parodies of both the overuse of 'the' and Joe teh whatever. Elvis has some awesome powers of parody.

Posted by: SillyRatfacedGit at March 13, 2009 4:41 PM

Posted by: Matt Osborne at March 13, 2009 4:50 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-b7RmmMJeo

Posted by: Matt Osborne at March 13, 2009 4:51 PM

Seriously, has anyone actually tortured themselves by slogging through Ayn Rand's dreck?

Beck and Malkin could never do it. There are no pictures in Atlas Shrugged.

Posted by: D. C. at March 13, 2009 6:04 PM

I think the distinction that needs to be pointed out on this to these idiots as well is that Atlas Shrugged was a work of fiction...these quotes were not... These were from a personal philosophy standpoint.

Posted by: Nicki at March 13, 2009 6:25 PM

has anyone actually tortured themselves by slogging through Ayn Rand's dreck?
i read them a lot of them in high school, a million years ago. They were.....depressing.

Posted by: ceu at March 13, 2009 7:48 PM

As a "liberal" and an Ayn Rand fan, I find it odd that she is being used as a tool of the conservative base.

As mentioned in The Fountainhead, there is no one more repugnant as a "second hander", someone who lives off the work of others without care of the creations wishes. Those are the people she targets.

I think most of these pundits would fit easily into this category. She has no beef with Joe Six Pack on the street.

Posted by: Jay Kamins at March 14, 2009 12:08 AM



pixel.jpg
rogue_blogging_logo.jpg

Buy my book!