Seldom do I come across an example where something is advocated under the auspices of capitalism that is as bad or worse than Marxism. This is one of those exceptional times.
Newsbusters points to a piece by Nicholas Provenzo at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism which says touts the morality of killing children who aren't perfect.
The article specifically cites Trig, the Palin baby who was Down syndrome, as an example where the parents should have killed the baby in the womb because Trig is "only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision." Provenzo says the Palin's are being selfish because they are "essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."
This really isn't that different than the reason many if not most abortions are done: to protect the lifestyle of the mother and/or father aborting the child. After all, the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health show that the largest reasons by far given for killing unborn children is that they "couldn't afford" the child (as if parents during the Great Depression could afford their children) or that the mother just "didn't want the child."
The only thing surprising about this piece, really, is that it is found at an organization which, by its very name, is dedicated to the advancement of capitalism.
While capitalism is about the growth of business and wealth, traditional capitalism is NOT, because traditional capitalism is grounded in the Christian work ethic--which is a part of the Christian worldview which recognizes human life as being created in the image of God, and therefore is sacred.
It should be noted that Provenzo's philosophy is, as Newsbusters points out, more "objectivism" than traditional capitalism. Those familiar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will recognize objectivism as a philosophy which takes good and healthy things (individualism, personal responsibility, freedom, capitalism, etc.) to radical extremes to form a perverted philosophy of self-centeredness and moral autonomy. In objectivism, personal achievement and personal happiness are considered a high moral purpose in themselves.
In the end, it's nothing more than repackaged selfishness which is willing to sacrifice others on the altar of self-fulfillment.
In this case, we hear it coming from a different source than usual, but it's the same old sin that would rather end another person's life if that life threatens their own self actualization plan.
Newsbusters points to a piece by Nicholas Provenzo at the Center for the Advancement of Capitalism which says touts the morality of killing children who aren't perfect.
The article specifically cites Trig, the Palin baby who was Down syndrome, as an example where the parents should have killed the baby in the womb because Trig is "only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision." Provenzo says the Palin's are being selfish because they are "essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."
This really isn't that different than the reason many if not most abortions are done: to protect the lifestyle of the mother and/or father aborting the child. After all, the latest statistics from the South Dakota Department of Health show that the largest reasons by far given for killing unborn children is that they "couldn't afford" the child (as if parents during the Great Depression could afford their children) or that the mother just "didn't want the child."
The only thing surprising about this piece, really, is that it is found at an organization which, by its very name, is dedicated to the advancement of capitalism.
While capitalism is about the growth of business and wealth, traditional capitalism is NOT, because traditional capitalism is grounded in the Christian work ethic--which is a part of the Christian worldview which recognizes human life as being created in the image of God, and therefore is sacred.
It should be noted that Provenzo's philosophy is, as Newsbusters points out, more "objectivism" than traditional capitalism. Those familiar with Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged will recognize objectivism as a philosophy which takes good and healthy things (individualism, personal responsibility, freedom, capitalism, etc.) to radical extremes to form a perverted philosophy of self-centeredness and moral autonomy. In objectivism, personal achievement and personal happiness are considered a high moral purpose in themselves.
In the end, it's nothing more than repackaged selfishness which is willing to sacrifice others on the altar of self-fulfillment.
In this case, we hear it coming from a different source than usual, but it's the same old sin that would rather end another person's life if that life threatens their own self actualization plan.
14 comments:
First, Nick Provenzo has responded to the many misrepresentations of his views in a followup post at:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/fundamental-right-to-abortion.htm
Second, I'm going to speak up to support Nick Provenzo's *moral* defense of the 90% of women who have learned that their fetus has DS and who eventually chose to abort.
If a woman takes a serious look at the consequences for her life of having an abortion vs. raising that child, and she decides that an abortion would best foster her happiness in the full context of her life, then that is her legal right. And more importantly, she would also be making the *morally* right choice for herself.
Of course, if a woman chooses to have the DS child, that is her right and I genuinely hope that things work out as well as possible for the child and the family.
But to uphold the 10% women who choose to have the DS child as automatically morally superior to the 90% who choose to abort is wrong.
Those women who have made the difficult decision to abort do not deserve to be tarred with the label "murderer" for choosing their own happiness. And anyone who would attempt to saddle those women with an unearned guilt should be ashamed of themselves.
Paul, you will find no shame here--and you never will--for calling a spade a spade. Guilt when we have done something is wrong is appropriate; it motivates us to acknowledge the wrong we did, remedy it if we can, and prevent future such wrongs if we cannot. Many post-abortive women have utilized their guilt to make positive changes in their lives; it's too bad that more have not.
Morality doesn't change based on what I want or what you want or what a pregnant woman wants. Whether she wants her child or not, whether that child has Down syndrome or not, if she aborts it, she has murdered it.
If a woman chooses to drown her 1-year old, has she made a "*morally* right choice for herself"...or has she murdered her toddler?
You, sir, should be ashamed of yourself for having the gall to proffer such a morally bankrupt treatise. But since you were shameless enough to do it in the first place, I won't be holding my breath in anticipation of any such shame.
The main point most people miss when discussing abortion isn't where does life begin it's where does one's individual rights begin. Individual rights begin at birth when the cord is cut. To equate a one year old with a fetus is beyond ridiculous it's just plain dis-honest. Once someone is born they have the full protection of the law and their individual rights are intact. One aspect of this article is very wrong and that's "Provenzo says the Palin's are being selfish because they are "essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others."" Mr. Provenzo, being an Objectivist would never use the term selfish to label someone that's irrational as being selfish.
If unborn children indeed had rights, wouldn't we have conception certificates rather than birth certificates?
Mr. Ellis, you have clearly never read any of Ayn Rand's works, more clearly not Atlas Shrugged, or you would surely know that no Objectivist would ever ask for or seek the sacrifice of another, in any way, shape or form. An Objectivist would also never seek to prevent a consciousness from carrying out its own will. Regardless of your views on when life begins, you most likely would not argue that a fetus is a conscious being, whereas the woman bearing the fetus is, and will therefore always be favored by any person who proposes an Objectivist view. Please, if you're going to cite a great work of literature, do your homework first.
Qtym
The purest and most thoughtful minds are those which love color the most.
--John Ruskin
sdh1972, you have it completely backwards. Human life is the paramount question relevant to when rights begin. If one is a human being, one has rights, and it doesn't matter what stage of development we are at--whether it's neonatal or on our death bed--we retain human dignity and human rights.
When a human being is conceived, they immediately have human DNA that is unique--not a part of the mother or anyone else. They also have everything they will ever have as a human being; the only thing a newly conceived person is short on is development.
To argue that someone lacks humanity because they lack development is akin to arguing that because a 1-year-old is less developed than a grown woman, that 1 year old is less human and less deserving of rights.
The statement about the Palin's being selfish was my paraphrase, which is an accurate assessment of Provenzo's analysis. His comment that the Palins are "essentially stranding the cost of their child's life upon others" indicates a selfishness that places material benefit above human life.
Since when have rights been contingent on a piece of paper? So until a baby has a birth certificate, it can be killed? What if it gets lost in the mail? Is that a longer free-murder period?
As I recall, those who founded our nation considered fundamental rights (such as the right to life) to be inalienable, and provided by God rather than governments.
If rights are contingent on the whim of government, we're all in big trouble.
Orange Qtym, Actually I am familiar with Ayn Rand and have read Atlas Shrugged. I found it to be enlightening and an accurate description of the insanity which Marxism can bring on...until the grandiose speeches on the virtue of selfishness began in the latter part of the book.
The sacrifice of another is exactly what is demanded when an abortion occurs; but of course Provenzo and other pro-abortionists conveniently deny the obvious humanity of the unborn child, so they can get around this.
The consciousness of the fetus is actually debatable. Is a conscious being capable of feeling and reacting to painful stimuli? The unborn child certainly can; it's been medically demonstrated from very early stages of development. If the definition of "conscious" requires articulate communication, then most children are not conscious until at least a year or two old; under this definition, infanticide would certainly be acceptable.
Also, if consciousness is a determiner of the acceptability of killing another human being, then it must be perfectly acceptable to kill someone who is asleep, under anesthesia or is in any other state of unconsciousness.
While the self-centeredness of objectivists is hard to underestimate, certainly you wouldn't sanction the killing of anyone who is unconscious.
Perhaps we should "do our homework" about where our assertions lead before we roll them out as acceptable standards.
Yes, you clearly have read her works, and for that I withdraw my statement, and apologize.
Whether or not abortion is a sacrifice depends entirely upon the values which one ascribes to the life which is being ended and Rand reasons, in the grandiose speeches at the end of the book, that these depend entirely on the morality of the person making the decision. This would be only her view of this issue, however. Mine is still yet to be determined, as I have never been in the situation before and, I might add, I assume neither have you, judging solely on your first name.
Addressing the issue of whether a fetus is conscious, whether a being which feels and reacts to stimuli is conscious, to this I answer no. We do not consider plants to be conscious, although they will react to stimuli, which is, in turn, the definition of feeling. The reaction to painful stimuli, though an unnecessary point, can also be argued. Most of us do not consider animals to be conscious beings, and in fact have no problem killing the spider which invades our space. The difference between conscious beings and others is contemplation; reason. The spider does not reason its decisions, it merely takes the instantaneously seemingly safest option, in an effort to continue its own life to the next instant. Consciousness does not require articulate communication, it requires reason.
Further, we are using two seperate meanings of the term conscious. As communication necessitates agreement of definitions, can we say that a conscious person is one capable of conscious thought?
Never underestimate the self-centeredness of the objectivist. It might be said to be infinite. But self-centeredness does not lead to the killing of others. A high regard for one's own life and values does not require or even indicate a low regard for the lives of others. Nowhere in Atlas Shrugged does an objectivist character initiate or advocate initiating violence. Those characters that do are in fact the villains of the story and, as I am about to finish the book this time around, I don't currently remember whether their violence is even answered with violence.
I, personally, do not advocate violence against anything. Seeking to end a life rather than seeking to improve or extend one's own life is inhuman, and even lower than animal. But there are times when these two come into conflict, in the animal world as well as our own; in our world it is an individual's moral responsibility to make and hence live with that decision.
I apologize also for the "do your homework" line. I see now that it was doubly unnecessary.
Reasoning with a person who gets his truth from revelations/faith is useless. If you are reading this and are open to reason, read Ayn Rand and see what she has to say.
Here is the root of the argument:
"...touts the morality of killing children who aren't perfect."
vs the actual nature of the situation - terminating a non-child [a potential child]. Repeatedly equating potential humans with actual humans is completely arbitrary.
Capitalism isn't merely an econ-system, but much more broadly, the only social system that permits each of us actual people to live for our own sake. It is indeed radical, and Objectivism offers the radical foundation required to support a consistent defense of Capitalism.
Bob, does your Christian-based Capitalism ultimately permit you to do anything for yourself, your family...? Or, does it break down with the first encounter with somebody's claim on your life?
Jack, the unborn child in the womb is every bit as human as you or me; all they lack is development.
The unborn child from conception on has all they will ever need; the only thing they lack is the development of those biological parts. If full development is the mark of humanity--and thus value--then it must be morally more acceptable to kill a toddler than a grown human being, because the toddler isn't "fully developed" yet.
Capitalism is completely in harmony with Christian values and philosophy. You will find capitalism in some form or another throughout the Bible in a favorable light, and modern capitalism owes its foundations to the spread of Christian philosophy in the West.
What does NOT conform to Christian philosophy is the perverted form of capitalism advocated by Ayn Rand. It is really nothing but self-centeredness packaged in a capitalist framework; essentially just as Marxism is self-centeredness packaged in what is ostensibly a collectivist framework.
Wow. Know what you are talking about before you start writing an article.
Here's a tip: Know what a person means when they use a word before assuming you use the word in the same way.
Ragnar, I hope you've named yourself after Mr. Danneskjöld himself, my favorite character from Atlas Shrugged.
Post a Comment