About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand did not approve of "abortion on demand," at least not in the sense in which that phrase is normally understood. - Dwyer

Yes, this seemed a strange way to phrase Rand's position.  One can realize that she supported abortion and placed the burden of justifying restriction of late term abortions on those who would restrict it.  But she also did say that the first three months were the crucial issue, and she was none to dismiss personal responsibility and foreplanning.

As for the speculations about her having had an abortion, I doubt they are relevant.  Many people who have abortions also become staunch foes of abortion.  If we take the default Jewish position on abortion as permissible, there is little reason to believe her position was determined purely by personal circumstances.  One might as well say she supported abortion because of Neal's affair with Cooper - a groundless assertion.

Ted


Post 21

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 8:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I merely meant "abortion if desired," of course. Ted, you say:
there is little reason to believe her position was determined purely by personal circumstances.
This is not what I was saying. I was referring only to the intensity of her belief. It seems disproportionate (to me anyway).


Post 22

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 10:39pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
She was referring to the right to abortion. Her primary concern would seem to be the enslavement of a couple to the support of children that they didn't want and can't afford, simply because of accidental pregnancies. Why should a married couple have to bear and raise children just because they love each other and want sex to be an expression of that love? Human beings don't live for the sake of others, nor for the sake unwanted children that they might accidentally conceive. Their primary goal in life is not the breeding of other human beings. But that would seem to be their goal as viewed by Christians and other opponents of abortion, which explains the continuing emphasis on "the family" by the Christian right. People don't live for their own sake, according to conservatives; they live for the sake of the next generation.

- Bill

Post 23

Tuesday, May 29, 2007 - 11:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Some conservatives (and even non-conservatives) see the next generation and what will be passed on to the next generation as among their most enduring accomplishments. Of course it's not an accomplishment to be built on slave labor. I know I won't visit the stars, but the knowledge that mankind may someday do so brings me joy. All productive lives contribute toward the human endeavor. Don't tell me there is no such thing. As on 9/11, envious and evil men strive to efface it.

Of course, Rand had all her own personal effects burnt, and named no heir...

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/29, 11:09pm)


Post 24

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 4:23amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Of course, Rand had all her own personal effects burnt, and named no heir...

Well - she DIDN'T name any intellectual heir, and an executor is not an heir intellectually or otherwise...


Post 25

Wednesday, May 30, 2007 - 5:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill, you're not hearing me, so I'm off.

Post 26

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
An accidental pregnancy?  There sure are a lot of guys working hard at the bar for something that could happen by accident with any woman they happen to be nearby, I guess.  It never happens by accident - not really.

Post 27

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also now that Hilary was brought up - anyone see her latest?  She said America must reject the "Go it alone" attitude and embrace the "Shared effort" attitude instead.  Wow - that is as close to straight-up Communism as I have heard in some time!

Post 28

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 12:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
He made a point to call the parents of servicemen killed during his term, even those who died in accidents.


Wow I didn't know that about Reagan. What an extraordinary man!

Post 29

Thursday, May 31, 2007 - 9:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Irony, John?

My point was that he was not as disengaged or atavistically belligerent as he was portrayed. Oh, and I picked the book up today. Opening it at random, I think it's a wonderful insight into the man and his times. The press threw fits trying to besmirch the man during his terms, and they called the electorate fools for seeing him as a decent guy when they knew he must really be a malicious hypocrite. Well, he's having the last laugh.

Ted
(Edited by Ted Keer
on 5/31, 9:08pm)


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 30

Friday, June 1, 2007 - 7:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
My comment wasn't meant to be ironic at all Ted. I already liked a lot of things about Reagan but that personal touch of him calling every single parent of a serviceman killed was something I didn't know about him. He was a true leader. Thank you for posting it. I wish our current President would do the same.

Post 31

Sunday, June 3, 2007 - 8:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sorry John, I'm so used to sarcasm toward Reagan that such unqualified praise seemed like it just must be fake.

Post 32

Tuesday, June 5, 2007 - 6:13pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Our Fifth Greatest President

I have acquired this book and am reading snippets in between other reading. I cannot express how wonderful a resource this is. For example, back at the time of the bombing of Saddam's Osirak facility, we learn that Prime Minister Begin (God Bless him) acted unilaterally in the attack. At the time, it was widely rumoured that the attack had been made with the assent of America, and this impression in the press was never denied.

But Reagan was actually not informed, and was annoyed at Begin, and writes that he would rather have applied pressure on Saddam in concert with France. (I assume at some point Reagan will write about his changed opinion of France - Spring of 1986, if not before.) But although Reagan was annoyed, he did not deny any foreknowledge in public since he did not want to weaken Israel's standing in Arab eyes, which he thought might invite an Arab attack in response. This was a calm, wise, and measured response. In return, Begin advised Reagan that the Israelis had to act, since the plant was just about to go "hot" and that taking it out later would have meant spewing radiation across Baghdad.

I did not think it would be possible for Reagan's estimation in my eyes to go any higher. Perhaps other parts of the book will disappoint. But this book is a must read for any thinking American.

Ted Keer

Post 33

Saturday, June 9, 2007 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

BookTV on CSPAN2 Is rebroadcasting The Reagan Diaries interview with editor Douglas Brinkley at 3PM Saturday 6/9/2007 and again at 3AM 6/10/2007.



Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.