Next post
It’s always interesting to me to see a liberal get caught saying what he really means. There’s furious backtracking, accusations of mischaracterization, and about 7 times out of 10, some mention of Karl Rove thrown in for good measure.
With Nick Provenzo, I got the first two. And hey, two out of three ain’t bad (although the Karl Rove “evil genius” stuff is the most entertaining). Yesterday, I wrote about Nicholas Provenzo’s vile column saying that Trig Palin should have been aborted, and that Sarah Palin’s decision not to was selfish, immoral, and “worship of retardation”.
And, wonder of wonders, Nicholas Provenzo actually responded! Here’s what he had to say:
Hi. I’m Nick. And I’m not an asshat. I see that you linked to my post affirming abortion rights. But I do notice that you contradict yourself.
You say:
> Every woman has the right to “choose”, as they like to say.
That would imply you recognize the right of a woman to choose abortion. And yet you later say:
>[This Nick fella adocates abortion] unless you’re 100% “healthy” — and by whose standards is “healthy” defined anyway? — you don’t have a right to live? And what gives this guy the right to decide?
That would be a straw man. I didn’t say that, and your claiming as much is a lie. After all, you yourself quote me as writing:
>[I]t is completely legitimate for a woman to look at the circumstances of her life and decide that having a child with Down syndrome (or any child for that matter) is not an obligation that she can accept. After all, the choice to have a child is a profoundly selfish choice; that is, a choice that is an expression of the parent’s personal desire to create new life.
So which is it? Do you support the right of a woman to choose abortion (and by extension) my affirmation of a woman’s right to abort in the case of physical or mental disability, or do you claim that women *must* carry a disabled fetus to term, even if they decide themselves unable to live up to the responsibly?
I’m sure the +90% of women who choose abortion in the case of sever retardation await your answer (and perhaps more pressingly), Gov. Palin’s.
Ah, the joy of backtracking. Ain’t it grand?
Nick’s argument seems to be that all he was saying is that it’s a legitimate choice to abort a child with severe retardation. But poor Nick seems to forget that we can still access what he wrote. And that wasn’t his argument. His argument was never simply about whether or not a woman had the right to choose. Nick’s original argument was that it was morally wrong and selfish for a woman to carry a disabled child to term, not to mention sheer disgust and condescension towards people with disabilities. You can see him saying that here:
Given that Palin’s decision is being celebrated in some quarters, it is crucial to reaffirm the morality of aborting a fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome (or by extension, any unborn fetus)—a freedom that anti-abortion advocates seek to deny.
And here:
Because a person afflicted with Down syndrome is only capable of being marginally productive (if at all) and requires constant care and supervision, unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.
And here:
At Noodlefood, Diana Hsieh condemns such a stand as “the worship of retardation.” Given that Palin had complete foreknowledge of her child’s severe disability yet nevertheless chose to have it, it is hard not to see her choice as anything less.
Sorry, Nicky. You lose this round.
Your argument was not about whether or not a parent could choose to abort a baby they knew would be severely disabled. And anyway, is Down’s Syndrome really considered “severely disabled” these days? I wouldn’t have thought so.
Anyway, your entire argument in your first column revolved around the complete and utter worthlessness of the life of a disabled child, and that a parent that chose to keep a disabled child rather than abort it was making a selfish choice — not only a selfish choice, but an immoral choice. Like it or not buddy, that’s what you said. Nick, sweetheart, you wrote that stuff. Not me. If you read it and found it disgusting like the rest of us who are, well, normal did, then that just means you snapped out of whatever hallucinatory state you were in when you wrote that disgusting drivel. Trying to twist around what you said simply will not work. Not when it’s all too easy to go back and see that, oh wait, you did say that it was “moral” to abort a child with Down’s Syndrome.
Sorry, Nicky boy. That’s what we like to call eugenics. I know it’s a dirty word for you guys out in Liberal Land, and pretty words like CHOICE! and HOPE! and CHANGE! sound so much better, but it doesn’t change the definition of what you were advocating. You weren’t making an argument that it was OK for a woman to abort her disabled baby if she so chose. Your column focused on attacking someone who decided to carry her disabled baby to term. That’s not CHOICE!, honey. That’s the arrogance and narcissism that seems to be embedded into the minds of all liberals. You can’t say you support CHOICE! and then turn around and ridicule someone for their choice just because, well, you don’t like it or you disagree. You liberals just tend to think you can dictate the choices people make because you’re so much gosh-darned smarter than everyone. It’s why liberals love the idea of big government. That’s why you felt it was perfectly OK to belittle, ridicule, and smear Sarah Palin for her choice to let Trig live. It’s because you don’t actually believe in choice, do ya, Nick?
You weren’t advocating choice. You were advocating death and eugenics. And if you don’t like that, then I’m not the person to be whining to. Trying to complain that you were only trying to make a pro-abortion argument isn’t gonna work here, buddy. Sorry.
And yes, Nick. You are an asshat.
UPDATE: Nick responds again in the comments. Here’s what he says:
I give your attempt at a reply only one whore diamond for being both sad and lame. It is absolutely moral to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome if a woman, acting in her own self-interest, determines that to be her choice. There is nothing special about retardation qua retardation that justifies not aborting a fetus. In fact, to knowingly bring a severely retarded fetus to term just because you have an anti-abortion fetish, while legal (and must remain so), ain’t exactly my idea of a moral or just choice, given what I have observed of the affliction.
You nevertheless claim otherwise; in condemning my position, you write:
>That’s what we like to call eugenics. I know it’s a dirty word for you guys out in Liberal Land.
Sorry, sweetie-pie, but that dog doesn’t hunt. If is supported eugenics, I’d have to mandate forced abortions. Show me where I advocate as much. Show me where I say Sarah Palin should have been compelled against her will to abort the fetus she wanted to bring to term.
Of course you can’t, although given your propensity to dig yourself deeper, I’m sure you will try. If I see it on my google alerts, I promise you I’ll laugh.
And I do love that you call me a liberal. I guess you were too lazy to look up my opposition to the coerced redistribution of wealth, my support for the utter defeat of Islamic totalitarianism (to include thermonuclear war if American military commanders decide that to use these weapons would save American lives), my opposition to multiculturalism, my support for the right of an individual to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and even my opposition to taxpayer-financed abortion.
Yup, I’m to liberal like you are to honest. But don’t worry your pretty little head about it. Just remember me if you encounter a woman who is denied her right to abort her unwanted fetus in a post Roe v. Wade world, and remember how I was an “asshat” for writing about the fault-lines in the time before the rules changed.
Patronizingly yours,
Nick
PS: Please have the last word if you wish, ’cause I’m otta here.
Hey, lucky me: I get a “whore diamond”! I have to say, I’ve never heard that before. And I’m curious: is Nick visiting all the blogs who have been condemning him over this asshattery, or am I just special? I’m certainly not the only one who’s posted about it.
But, there you are, guys. There’s no real need for me to keep saying the same thing over and over again, because he speaks pretty well for himself. There’s no defending his position on this, try as he might. And I think I already pwned this guy pretty good.
But that doesn’t mean you guys can’t have at him. So go ahead. Show no mercy (in MY comments section, folks — no rude e-mails to Nick or anything like that, please). 😉
Frank White says: I just had an Obama supporter call my house, so I started going off about how it’s great we are going to finally have the Marxist revolution and take all the money from the evil rich. Then I said are you with me for the revolution and the girl on the other end of the line, her voice became nervous and she hesitated and said “uhhhh hmmmm” and I responded well you really don’t know much about Barack Obama do you? Have you ever heard of Saul Alinsky and Bill Ayers? I mean I was going at this girl with both barrels, and I think I scared her into actually thinking.
docjim505 says: While I have to give Nicky props for actually trying to defend himself, I think that he brought a knife to a gunfight. As you clearly point out, his thesis – that bringing a disabled child to term is an immoral and selfish choice – is pretty disgusting and frankly indefensible… unless one happens to be some sort of post-modern Aryan master-race herrenvolk wannabe.
I don’t know what I would do if I found that my wife was carrying a baby that had some sort of defect. I hope that I would do the right thing and love my child with all my heart for all his life, and not have some “doctor” murder him before birth.
And you’re right about something else: Nick is an asshat.
Steve says: Casey
Thank you for this. Nail this B******d. Please don’t stop until they do.
Steve
Bagley says: Outstanding, Cassy.
Rob Farrington says: Go, Cassy!
I’d cheerlead you, except that although I don’t mind wearing short skirts, I have exceptionally hairy legs which both connect to left feet, and I also have a habit of dropping pom-poms (probably best if you don’t go there).
Sounds like he’s on the defensive, and so he should be. Who is HE to decide who has a right to life? I saw a documentary maybe a year back about a girl who was born with no arms or legs. I can imagine this clown thinking “But what kind of life did her parents think that she’d ever be able to have? And how could she possibly contribute to society?”.
Last I knew, she was married, and to a very good-looking man (or so my female friends informed me *ahem*), who adores her and was more than willing to make the necessary sacrifices in his life, just to be with her. I don’t know what work she’d ever be able to find, but I’m damn sure that she’s less of a “drain to society” than the many able-bodied people of normal intelligence we get in these parts who spend their lives abusing and stealing from honest, hard-working people. These people are also invariably on the dole (on welfare, if you don’t use that term in the US), of course.
I’ve discussed adoption with my fiance (as far as we know, we’re both fertile but I’m adopted and I’d quite like to adopt a child myself, as well as having kids of my own), and I’d consider adopting a child with Down’s Syndrome.
Yes – it’d be hard, but it’d be our choice. And if you, Nick, think that we’d be doing something immoral by…I don’t know…”facilitating imperfection in the human race”, maybe, then f*ck you, frankly.
Joe McHugh says: One point to consider is this, and I think this is the value of the Provenzo column. It is not AUTOMATICALLY moral for a woman to have a baby with Down’s Syndrome. Yet, this is the exact moral superiority that has been claimed on behalf of Palin by Conservatives. If a woman wants to have a baby with Down’s Syndrome (and she can afford it,) great. If a woman doesn’t, that’s fine too.
She’s no hero for having a retarded baby.
DarkWaters says: I do not think you understood Nick’s argument at all.
First, you repeatedly insinuate that Nick Provenzo is a Liberal. However, if you actually read his blog, you would note that he is in charge of the Center for Advancement of Capitalism. Nick supports individual rights, limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, an assertive and principled national defense and the separation of church and state. These are hardly Liberal positions.
More importantly, you must recognize that carrying an unwanted child to full-term requires a serious commitment in time, energy and resources. Raising an unwanted child requires an eighteen year, almost 24/7 commitment of mental, emotional and financial resources. Similarly, putting an unwanted child up for adoption often creates serious emotion hardship, especially if a loving home cannot be found for the child. All of these hardships are drastically compounded if this child has a severe disability such as Down Syndrome.
All of this being said, what is truly immoral is forcing a pregnant woman to bring a fetus with Down Syndrome to full term.
DarkWaters says: By the way, you can read Nick Provenzo’s response to a general audience here:
http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2008/09/fundamental-right-to-abortion.htm
Gary Baker says: Joe,
I’m not really sure what you mean by “Automatically moral for a woman to have a baby with Down’s Syndrome.” I would argue that it is in the sense that it is automatically immoral to kill the baby. Beyond that, you can make a lot of arguments as to what kind of parent the mother will be, but I have no doubt that they will benefit in the long run from choosing to preserve a life rather than dispose of the situation.
Knott Buyinit says: Nick ‘Mephistopheles’ Provenzo’s evil plan:
Step 1:
Make the world believe that it is actually immoral to carry a Down syndrome child to term.
Step 2:
Pass laws requiring genetic testing, first for expectant 40+ year old mothers, then every expectant mother.
Step 3:
Pass laws requiring mothers expecting a Down syndrome child to abort.
Step 4:
Pass laws requiring that mothers who don’t want to abort their Down syndrome child be sent to patriotic re-education compounds.
Step 5:
Pass laws requiring that Down syndrome children be euthanized to protect society.
Step 6: Gulag Auschwitz for all defectives, Conservatives, religious people, and other undesirables.
Step 7:
Move out of his mother’s basement.
Knott Buyinit says: Nick ‘Mephistopheles’ Provenzo’s evil plan:
Step 1:
Make the world believe that it is actually immoral to carry a Down syndrome child to term.
Step 2:
Pass laws requiring genetic testing, first for expectant 40+ year old mothers, then every expectant mother.
Step 3:
Pass laws requiring mothers expecting a Down syndrome child to abort.
Step 4:
Pass laws requiring that mothers who don’t want to abort their Down syndrome child be sent to patriotic re-education compounds.
Step 5:
Pass laws requiring that Down syndrome children be euthanized to protect society.
Step 6: Gulag Auschwitz for all defectives, Conservatives, religious people, and other undesirables.
Step 7:
Move out of his mother’s basement.
I’m with commenter #7 above… it isn’t automatically the correct choice to have a special needs child. I obviously don’t agree with Provenzo’s view that they don’t deserve to live, however.
And I should point out that Objectivists are far from liberal.
NB says: Fiano 2; Asshat 0.
@DarkWaters re: “More importantly, you must recognize that carrying an unwanted child to full-term requires a serious commitment in time, energy and resources.”
You’re sort of missing one of Ms. Fiano’s points which is that if the pro-choice movement were really about choice, then just as an unwanted child could be aborted, they would support a wanted child being brought to term, regardless of condition. Pro-choicers tend toward the delusional position that you have the choice to abort so long as you choose to do so. If you choose not to you’re eeeevil or selfish or Christianist (still don’t know what a “Christianist” is). Like the moonbat comedian who’s offering the Palin daughter 25grand so she can escape her “facistic” home and have that abortion she deep down really want’s except the family won’t hear of it (http://minx.cc/?post=273664). Never would it occur to this particular asshat that the daughter may actually *gasp* want the child, and this is where your argument falls short. Nick was not speaking of abortion or choice in general he was speaking of the Palin’s situation in particular and little Trig was clearly not “unwanted”.
In short your point is well taken in general and though I’m pro-life (which is to say I’m anti baby killing) I do understand that if “choice” is the current law, then an unwanted child can be legally aborted (I personally think the “choice” was made when two people chose to have intercourse and by the time conception occurs it’s too late to change one’s mind about the “choice” but I digress). I just wish that pro choicers also supported the decision to keep a wanted child. Clearly that is not always the case and I believe this is true of Nick. He blathers on about the immorality of bringing a disabled child into the world but never takes a moment to think…OMG maybe the parents actually wanted to bring the child to term regardless of the burdens it may put on them (which to me sounds selfless, selfish would be let’s kill the kid because it might be hard on us) and if he’s truly pro choice he should respect that decision. You, darkwaters have perhaps made the same error in not being able to imagine a situation where a young single mother might actually want to keep her child.
Excellent couple of posts Cassy, and thanks for the hat tip yesterday. I’m afraid I wasn’t nearly as fortunate to get a rebuttal from our friend Mr. Provenzo. But then, perhaps the 100+ arguments that others made on NewsBusters was enough to put him in his place a bit.
Sure glad we have reasonable people like yourself out there in the blogosphere to restore order to the nutroot nation.
What an asshat… 🙂
Darkwater, thanks for the link to Provenzo’s rebuttal. I like how he and his supporters use the same analogy. First off, the analogy made me laugh out loud.
Like an acorn is to a tree, a fetus is to an independent human being?
Wouldn’t the acorn be more appropriately compared to an egg or a sperm cell (both being a kind of seed per say), and the tree would be a fetus? With that being slightly more accurate, would that then negate the argument that the fetus is not a living thing? Also making the analogy a touch ignorant is the fact that an acorn is a living thing.
The argument that a fetus is not a living organism should have gone out the window in high school Biology class. Life is separated from the non-living by it’s ability to metabolize and reproduce. The fetus, being capable of doing both these things is therefore alive.
And what of the terminology ‘independent human being.’ Humans nurture their young for several years before they are capable of being fully independent and sustainable. Hell, I wasn’t an ‘independent human being’ until I was about 20.
Lastly, I would truly hate to view the world from Mr. Provenzo’s eyes. I can imagine looking into my wife’s eyes on our wedding day, reciting our vows, as she waited for me to say ‘I do,’ only to hear me say ‘hold on honey, I’m performing a cost-benefit analysis!’
Needless to say, the honeymoon would have been a bit chilly, for sure!
🙂
RogerCfromSD says: Those who argue in favor of ridding the world of potential “drains on the economy” should really think twice about what they are espousing.
If it is favorable to screen unborn children for deficiencies, then surely it will be favorable for Christians to abort their unborn if they screen positive for a “gay” gene.
It should also be favorable for Conservatives to abort their unborn if they screen positive for the “State-Dependent” and “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” genes.
Also, it would be acceptable for American doctors to abort any and all anchor babies, because they, of course, would carry the “Drain on Our Economy” and “Reconquista” genes.
Ohhh, this opens up a Pandora’s box of soooo MANY things that liberals would not see as “moral.”
Funny… Skewing morality cuts both ways…
“Nick supports individual rights, limited government, laissez-faire capitalism, an assertive and principled national defense and the separation of church and state. These are hardly Liberal positions.”
All quite correct — but that doesn’t alter the vileness of Provenzo’s bizarre cost-benefit argument that allowing Trig Palin to come to term is morally reprehensible.
Provenzo’s pronouncement of a “moral right to abort” assumes that the unborn child has no right to life. That is a left-liberal position — perhaps the most ungenerous and ruthless left-liberal position of all.
What’s Provenzo’s stand on capital punishment? If he’s for it, ask him why: hasn’t a killer merely done what an abortionist does, albeit in less sterile surroundings? If he’s against it, then he’s twisted himself into the most absurd of all leftist knots: kill the innocent and spare the killers.
Let’s hear it, Mr. Provenzo.
Amy says: Awesome, Cassy. Way to nail that jerk to the wall. He may squirm and protest, but he said what he said, and as a “selfish” and “immoral” parent of a child with disabilities, I stand and applaud you.
I give your attempt at a reply only one whore diamond for being both sad and lame. It is absolutely moral to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome if a woman, acting in her own self-interest, determines that to be her choice. There is nothing special about retardation qua retardation that justifies not aborting a fetus. In fact, to knowingly bring a severely retarded fetus to term just because you have an anti-abortion fetish, while legal (and must remain so), ain’t exactly my idea of a moral or just choice, given what I have observed of the affliction.
You nevertheless claim otherwise; in condemning my position, you write:
>That’s what we like to call eugenics. I know it’s a dirty word for you guys out in Liberal Land.
Sorry, sweetie-pie, but that dog doesn’t hunt. If is supported eugenics, I’d have to mandate forced abortions. Show me where I advocate as much. Show me where I say Sarah Palin should have been compelled against her will to abort the fetus she wanted to bring to term.
Of course you can’t, although given your propensity to dig yourself deeper, I’m sure you will try. If I see it on my google alerts, I promise you I’ll laugh.
And I do love that you call me a liberal. I guess you were too lazy to look up my opposition to the coerced redistribution of wealth, my support for the utter defeat of Islamic totalitarianism (to include thermonuclear war if American military commanders decide that to use these weapons would save American lives), my opposition to multiculturalism, my support for the right of an individual to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and even my opposition to taxpayer-financed abortion.
Yup, I’m to liberal like you are to honest. But don’t worry your pretty little head about it. Just remember me if you encounter a woman who is denied her right to abort her unwanted fetus in a post Roe v. Wade world, and remember how I was an “asshat” for writing about the fault-lines in the time before the rules changed.
Patronizingly yours,
Nick
PS: Please have the last word if you wish, ’cause I’m otta here.
Cassy,
You sure stirred Nick up quite a bit. Naturally, his true colors came running out.
Apparently an underlying element to the whole thing is his very chauvinistic attitude towards women. Such blatant condescension as: ‘One whore diamond,’ ‘sweetie-pie,’ and ‘you’re pretty little head,’ indicate more than a few issues that Nick has been trying to work out with mommy while currently residing in his parents basement.
Good luck working those out, Nick!
RA says: What do you expect. These people have more sympathy for mass murderers and animals than they do for innocent human beings.
They are savages and they are voting for the messiah of the savages.
docjim505 says: Something about Nicky’s spluttering claims that he’s NOT a liberal sounds familiar… Where have I heard this sort of thing before?
And I do love that you call me a liberal. I guess you were too lazy to look up my opposition to the coerced redistribution of wealth, my support for the utter defeat of Islamic totalitarianism (to include thermonuclear war if American military commanders decide that to use these weapons would save American lives), my opposition to multiculturalism, my support for the right of an individual to bear arms under the Second Amendment, and even my opposition to taxpayer-financed abortion.
Oh, yeah! Now I remember.
He sounds vaguely like Oswald Mosely or Fritz Kuhn, loudly proclaiming their patriotism and hatred of the common enemy (Bolshevism, in the case of the two bush-league fuhrers; islamofascism in the case of little Nicky) and wondering why any loyal Briton or American would for an instant criticize them or fail to see that they were really all on the same side.
Nicky, here’s the bottom line:
You are espousing the morality of eugenics. You are calling it a moral decision to kill a person for having a defect. How does this make you morally different from the nazis who preached the murder of Jews or Slavs or homosexuals or other untermenchen, or the bolsheviks who preached the murder of the capitalists or the kulaks or the trotskyites? You may not wear a swastika or a red star, and you may not goosestep, but I consider you to be morally indistinguishable from the nazis and the bolsheviks. You are a disgrace to the human race.
But I do thank you for one thing: I’ve always sort of wondered where one could find people willing to throw other people – children – into ovens. Now I know. I just weep that there are people like you in my country.
If is supported eugenics, I’d have to mandate forced abortions.
That is entirely untrue. The founders of Planned Parenthood, good progressive Democrats that they were, did not even suggest that abortions be forced. They wanted to make sure as many “undesireable” babies as possible were killed, but they understood what you do – you can only suggest so much killing before people think you a monster.
In fact, very few, if any, of the leaders of the progressive movement (in the US or elsewhere) supported forced abortions, though they were committed eugenicists.
Abe Froman says: Ah the unsweet irony. The one woman who SHOULD have chosen to have an abortion – Mrs. Provenzo – didn’t. And for that injustice the Asshat known as Nick is thrust upon us all.
A God Fearing Christian says: Cassey,
Thank you.
Since when has responsibility become an ethical decision? Who are we to decide if the quality of life God has given to us is not good enough?
Also, arguing that a raising a “normal child without needs” is somehow justifiably easier than a “special child” is an easy cop out.
And if you are a women whom agrees with Nick that “it is absolutely moral to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome if a woman, acting in her own self-interest”….
then I say the only thing you should be doing on your knees is praying!!!
John says: The devaluing of life down to dollar signs is only the beginning.
There is a professor of bioethics at Princeton (he may, in fact, be the Dept. chair) named Peter Singer. Dr. Singer has advocated letting parents and their physicians wait as long as 28 days after birth to decide if the infant should be “allowed” to live. His point that since the infant is not “self aware” he/she isn’t truly human and shouldn’t be afforded “human rights”.
In many cases Down’s Syndrome infants have other physical diagnoses beyond mental limitations and these have been used to “allow” infants to die rather than subject them to extraordinary treatments or procedures. Many years ago a Down’s Syndrome baby was born in Bloomington, Indiana and it was decided to let the baby starve since his esophagus was incomplete and he couldn’t swallow.
I would ask what Mr. Provenzo would suggest to infants who are born “normal” but through injury or illness become retarded? Would he consider the families selfish for not warehousing them in institutions if they are not independently wealthy?
Janir says: Wow! Gotta love those lberals! Let’s start calling people names when they get call out on their own comments! Way to show your class Nicky old boy!
Ben says: How can a so-called objectivist subscribe to Nazi-style eugenics ideology? I understand that someone who is going to have special needs child decide they can’t have the child but that doesn’t mean it is their “moral imperative” to abort the child.
I find it disturbing when self-professed defenders of free-market capitalism start incorporating fascist and communist beliefs into their own personal views.
John McLachlan says: The lady who is an abortion survivor would be dead if the legislation voted for by Barak Obama had been enacted prior to her mother’s abortion. Since she survived abortion and is now indisputably a bona fide human being, with the same human rights as any other person, when did she become a human being? She was not born, she was aborted. Her becoming a human being, is according to liberals, at some arbitrary extended time interval after the abortion. This means essentially that Barack Obama supports legalised murder. Alternatively, abortion is just a clinical procedure which can be performed upon a fetus, even if it is capable of independent life. Could an abortion survivor be declared to be clinical waste at the age of 31 years? Could any one else be declared to be clinical waste at 31, 32 40, or 65 years. If an abortion survivor is a human being, then to deprive him or her of the right to life introduces the precedent that there are no intrinsic human rights, even the basic “Right to Life” which a liberal legislator could not arbitrarily abolish. Perhaps Nick could venture his opinion on when, precisely someone acquires human rights. He could also state whether these rights are intrinsic, or subject to revision by legislators. Perhaps he could also state who has the wisdom to decide who should be got rid of, for the benefit of someone else.
Provenzo has had HOW many chances, by now, to logically substantiate his conclusion that aborting Trig would’ve been the right way to go? He’s written two entire columns about that and nothing else, commented here at least twice, probably more, I’d go look but it just isn’t worth my time.
The point is this: His argument is a non-argument. It begins exactly where it ends. Travels no logical distance, and thus relieves itself of the responsibility of demonstrating or proving anything, by simply side-stepping it. Things are so because Nick says they are so. They’re right because he says they’re right, they’re wrong because he says they’re wrong. The End.
He does have a point about not necessarily being liberal, though. Objectivism is the philosophy founded by Ayn Rand, who was staunchly against the redistribution of wealth and made some very substantive points about what disasters must befall us when we engage in it — from which I’ve quoted rather extensively, myself. Unlike Nick, Ayn Rand knew how to formulate an argument.
Her flaw was that she also stuck to this “abortion as a turnstyle” mindset. Apparently, in spite of these reams and reams of pages she wrote throughout a number of (rather dry) novels about finding the Perfect Man, it never once occurred to her that if abortion is commonplace, it becomes all the more likely that the next Henry Rearden or Howard Roark or John Galt would be the next baby sucked into a jar a piece at a time.
Nick will be back again. His argument rests on nothing, and therefore has no potential to change minds, other than being repeated over and over again. And so repeat he has done, and repeat he shall do.
Here’s a question I’d like to see answered by him next time he comes back: His test of a life worth living, is that the infant is capable of surviving outside the mother’s womb. That’s a far different thing, I note, from having actually been born. And many of the people who agree with him in his conclusion, would offer different tests that would in some cases yield different results — the partial-birth abortion folks come to mind.
How ’bout it, Nick? Is partial-birth abortion murder?
By the way, over at Rachel Lucas’ place where they’re discussing Provenzo’s, uh, works of art…someone just uploaded this picture. Our new pal should be a big fan of it:
fronclynne says: Heh. I like ol’ Nick. He just learnt the phrase “straw man” and can’t wait to trot it out.
Maybe him and his eugenics buddies can get together and purify their own race.
Way to go Cassey!
Remember, it really ain’t worth it to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed man.
mare says: Knott:
Nailed it.
brobin says: Asshat says:
“to knowingly bring a severely retarded fetus to term just because you have an anti-abortion fetish, while legal (and must remain so), ain’t exactly my idea of a moral or just choice”
If it isn’t moral or just, one might conclude that he thinks it’s immoral and unjust.
He also says:
“If is [sic] supported eugenics, I’d have to mandate forced abortions”
No, he wouldn’t. “If” doesn’t lead to “mandate forced abortions”. His position is, however, one of the fundamental philosophical underpinnings of eugenics. Forced abortions would be an example of how eugenicists might implement their plans, but they could be implemented in other ways as well: How about a veritable storm of lies, hatred, threats, and criminal acts aimed at the utter destruction of the unfortunates who choose not the kill their child?
fronclynne says: I just read some of ol’ Nick’s site. In times past, I would have said that much of what Ayn Rand wrote made sense, but these moral equivocators and mendacious solipsists throw the flaws of Objectivism into sharp relief. Ol’ Nick claims to be for the free market, so what? Is he more or less like me for it?
That said, I do agree with him that it is unfair to paint him as a “liberal”. “Skinnerian” might do as well as any other term of contempt.
Joe McHugh says: I continue to support Mr. Provenzo. Having a child with Down’s Syndrome is NOT an automatic sign of morality. If parents choose to abort a retarded child, that’s perfectly appropriate if they believe they can’t support it financially or emotionally. Why should they sacrifice their lives? If they don’t want it, they don’t want it. They are equally as moral as a person who decided they do want because they can handle it.
Rob Farrington says: But Joe, Sarah and her husband chose NOT to abort their child, and Provenzo disapproves of their choice. Surely that’s the bottom line, whether you’re against abortion on religious grounds, or not – he’s making a moral judgement against them simply because they chose to have Trig rather than abort him.
How can anyone complain that people who are pro-life are soooo ‘judgemental’ (speaking for myself and giving a personal example – although I have a friend who became pregnant after being raped who decided to keep the baby, I would never want to prevent any woman in the same situation from deciding otherwise, regardless of my personal beliefs), when Mr Provenzo here is criticizing someone for actually NOT wanting to have an abortion?
Nick, if you’re reading this, do you actually really believe in the concept of personal choice? The thousands of women who have abortions each year obviously didn’t influence Sarah Palin’s decision, so stop pretending that the birth of Trig will cause some kind of new fad where women who would otherwise have had an abortion choose to give birth to what most of us would regard as valued human beings, but who you would probably see as an army of drooling retards who would just be a drain on the US economy.
And ‘an anti-abortion fetish’?!? Puh-leeeaze. Does that mean that you expect people to believe that Sarah Palin maybe wanted Trig as some kind of Christian fashion accessory, so that she could demonstrate how holy and pro-life she is…a kind of “Hey, look everyone – I’m so Christian that I’m even willing to look after something like this in order to demonstrate how pro-life I am?”.
I don’t think that you really think that way; I suspect that you were just lashing out after being put on the defensive. But then again, maybe I’m still being too generous and optimistic about human nature. Maybe I should spend a few hours over at The Daily Kos or somewhere; the hate and bile from the left might help cure me of that affliction.
NB says: One of my favorite parts: “It is absolutely moral to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome if a woman, acting in her own self-interest, determines that to be her choice.” A better example of moral relativism I’ve never heard. Apparently something can be deemed moral if a person decides for themselves that it is moral. IMO that’s pretty dangerous. Eventually it leads to things like this:
And just to be fair, regarding the “sweetie pie” and “pretty little head” comments. True they’re condescending but Cassy did throw out “Nicky”, “sweetheart” and “honey” so lets not be calling foul on that one. The whore diamond thing, though I’m not really sure what that’s supposed to mean, is definitely out of line.
Final score: Fiano 2, Asshat 0 (woulda given you three if you’d have responded but I agree, there really was no need. Nicky got pwned in the first round and only confirmed your counter argument with his most recent response.)
docjim505 says: Joe McHugh – I continue to support Mr. Provenzo. Having a child with Down’s Syndrome is NOT an automatic sign of morality. If parents choose to abort a retarded child, that’s perfectly appropriate if they believe they can’t support it financially or emotionally. Why should they sacrifice their lives?
The fact that you can even ask that last question tells me that it’s probably pointless to try to explain it to you, but I’ll give it a try anyway.
Jonathan Haidt defines morality thus:
[M]orality is any system of interlocking values, practices, institutions, and psychological mechanisms that work together to suppress or regulate selfishness and make social life possible. (1)
What is generally considered “moral” behavior is, in effect, the individual supressing his own desires for some greater good, and often for the greater good of somebody else. The ultimate example is for a person to supress the selfish impulse to preserve his own life in order to save somebody else.(2) Less dramatic is the example of a person supressing the selfish impulse of greed to give money to another person in the form of charity.(3) Good parenting – suppressing the selfish desires to have lots of extra money, free time, sleep and sex in order to provide for the needs of children – is likewise generally considered “moral” behavior.
The Palins decided to make the decision to give up quite a lot in terms of money and personal freedom to have children. They decided to give up even more to raise a handicapped child. How, therefore, can you say that this decision – to sacrifice for the good of another – is not moral?
Now, my explanation depends on a certain definition of morality, i.e. sacrifice by one person for the good of another. There are other definitions of morality, including the perverse morality evolved by the nazis that allowed them to throw into ovens people they considered to be burdens on society. I’m going to guess that you’re a liberal, however, and libs, especially in an election year, are all about “sacrifice” and “giving” (i.e. paying higher taxes). The Palins are sacrificing to raise their children, including Trig. Isn’t that moral?
BTW, if it’s “moral” for people to abort an unborn child because they decide that they can’t emotionally or financially afford to support him, is it also “moral” for them to cast aside any obligations to care for other children, handicapped family members, or the elderly if they decide that such an obligation is too much of an emotional or financial strain? For that matter, can I decide that I can’t emotionally or financially afford to pay taxes to support our welfare state and stop paying? Would that be moral?
———–
(1) Jonathan Haidt, “What Makes People Vote Republican”. Edge, Sept. 9, 2008. http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
(2) “Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.” The Gospel According to Saint John, 15:13 (KJV)
(3) cf. The story of Jesus and the rich man, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew, 19:16 – 24
DarkWaters says: NB wrote:
“You’re sort of missing one of Ms. Fiano’s points which is that if the pro-choice movement were really about choice, then just as an unwanted child could be aborted, they would support a wanted child being brought to term, regardless of condition. … You, darkwaters have perhaps made the same error in not being able to imagine a situation where a young single mother might actually want to keep her child.”
Rest assured that I believe that every woman should have the legal right to choose to bring a fetus to full term, regardless of the mental or physical condition.
However, the issue that started this whole controversy was not over legal rights. Instead, it was over when it is acceptable to morally condemn someone for choosing to given birth to a child with Down Syndrome. A mother who gives birth to a child that she will not love, will not financially provide for and will not take care of has created a victim. To give birth under these circumstances is an immoral act. We cannot deny the reality of that children with Down Syndrome require a significantly greater emotional and intellectual commitment to raise properly. This is why I think it is personally moral for a woman to abort a fetus with Down Syndrome if she does not want to carry it to full term.
As you can probably infer, I too embrace Ayn Rand’s view that a potential human being, such as a non-viable fetus, does not possess the moral rights of an actual human being, such as an infant, a geriatric or a full grown adult. I recognize that the majority of you adamantly disagree with this view. However, my goal here is to clarification; not persuasion. The Objectivist perspective on abortion is controversial enough when it is properly presented.
Rusty Weiss wrote:
“…would that then negate the argument that the fetus is not a living thing?”
Biological life begins once the egg is fertilized so a fetus is indisputably alive. The crucial philosophical issue is, when does a fetus, which is a potential human being, acquire the moral rights of an actual human being?
Rusty Weiss wrote:
“I can imagine looking into my wife’s eyes on our wedding day, reciting our vows, as she waited for me to say ‘I do,’ only to hear me say ‘hold on honey, I’m performing a cost-benefit analysis!’”
You are obviously being sarcastic here. However, the reality is that you should exercise proper judgment about every decision in your life, especially marriage. Marriage is a prodigious financial, emotional, intellectual and social commitment. If you choose to marry a woman, it should be because that woman is such an immense value to you that you are willing to restructure your life so that she remain an integral part of it. If you are going to marry someone who is more of a burden to you than a value, then you will not be happily married.
Rob Collier says: I guess ‘choice’ is fine, but only if the choice makes the abortionists happy. Sarah’s pregnancy would have been considered ‘at risk’, with her being over 40. The Palin’s (as a couple) decided to have an amnio as a precaution. The information they obtained allowed them to prepare for the special needs Trig would face. Due to years of depredation of common sense, Satah could have legally aborted this baby at any time over the 40 weeks, up to and including as he was traversing he birth canal. Yet, they ‘chose’ to accept the child. THEIR choice, THEIR expense, THEIR headache, if you will. No one else’s. Contrast this with a situation we encounter frequently. Our church has ministry teams which go to public housing projects to pray over people. In one apartment, we saw grandmother in bed, with her 6-year old granddaughter combing her hair, her 4-year old sister next to her. A 2-year old boy in diapers was running around and mom was trying to keep him quiet, so as not the wake the sleeping baby on the couch. And mom’s pregnant, never married, and no man in sight. She also has asserted her power of choice. Reason carefully and choose wisely, as you will bear the brunt of those decisions, unless, of course, you vote democrat, then it’s ‘not your fault’.
Joe Mchugh says: I’m not quite as sure as Rob Farrington is that it is the position of Nick Provenzo that Ms Palin made an immoral choice, although I concede that he was not as clear as I would like him to be on this point in his piece.
Two quotes from Provenzo:”unless a parent enjoys the wealth to provide for the lifetime of assistance that their child will require, they are essentially stranding the cost of their child’s life upon others.” That “unless” is very important. It implies that parents with means can legitimately give birth to a disabled child.
Quote 2 (from his above post, #20.)”It is absolutely moral to abort a fetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome if a woman, acting in her own self-interest, determines that to be her choice.” That “if” is crucial to the meaning.
I would love it if Provenzo would clarify these points, and let us know if I’m on the right track. But considering that he has been subjected to death threats, why should he return here?
To docjim: I am not a liberal. I’m an advocate of individual rights and liberty, in all spheres of human life-economic religious, etc. (And NO I do not consider a fetus an individual possessing rights.)
I do not regard Jonathan Haidt’s morality as true. And certainly I do not consider Nazism an alternative.(Nazism is a form of self-sacrifice to others. Haidt’s more in their camp than you think.) The purpose of morality is to help you lead a successful life as an individual. But Ayn Rand explained this better than I can here, and I certainly suggest her books as rational moral philosophy.
(BTW Once a child is born and is a separate entity from the mother, certainly the parents have a moral obligation to raise them. Parents are a different story. No child is obligated to take care of a parent regardless of its impact on their lives or regardless of the character of the parents. It may be a moral choice or it may not, just like terminating a pregnancy. It all depends on the values and context of the decision maker. Nobody should force that decision on anyone.
And yes Taxation is thoroughly immoral!)
Gary Baker says: Darkwater
“A mother who gives birth to a child that she will not love, will not financially provide for and will not take care of has created a victim. To give birth under these circumstances is an immoral act.”
I agree that there is an immorality involved in the situation, but I believe you have the timing wrong. The immoral act occurred as soon as the parent decided to abandon the life they created. Killing the child simply adds another immoral act to the scenario, and one that can never be recovered from. A great many men and women have children ranging from severely disabled to perfectly healthy that they do not love or care for, and yes, this is immoral. It is, however, an immorality that they can overcome to their benefit. When the child is killed, no such redemption is available. The world is full of people that do not seem to be able to function well enough to take care of themselves. I often get frustrated at the situation. I never consider killing them off as a moral solution.
DarkWaters says: Gary Baker said:
“Killing the child..”
Abortion is never performed on children. At latest, the procedure is performed on a human fetus.
Even if you want to instead say that “aborting the fetus is an immoral act”, I ask you, what is your standard for morality? If the fetus has a right to life, where does that right come from? Is that source objective?
If the fetus has a right to life, where does that right come from? Is that source objective?
Either “God,” or “Some People (who agree with whoever’s speaking)”.
One way or the other, it is logically untenable to insist people have rights, and the fetus does not. Show me some people who say people have rights & fetuses don’t, I’ll show you some other people who say fetuses are people. So there’s not defining distinction there.
And if “God” is the source of the right…well then, of course the fetus must have it.
I’ve often heard it said that Objectivism is atheism. So it’s interesting that Objectivism is concerned with the “standard for morality.” How do you find such a standard in a godless universe? The only source left is “some people”…so how do you select which people get to decide this stuff?
Andy Capp says: The only asshats (and who other than a 12-year-old girl says that?) here are Casey and her supporters.
Casey never answers Provenzo’s argument. Just what’s so great about being retarded that makes it immoral to abort a retarded fetus if that’s what a woman wants?
The only asshats here are Casey [sic] and her supporters. Casey [sic] never answers Provenzo’s argument. Just what’s so great about being retarded that makes it immoral to abort a retarded fetus if that’s what a woman wants?
First: That was not Provenzo’s argument at all. His argument (as I’ve said, and others as well) was inspired by a situation in which a mother chose to keep the child. Cassy rightfully nailed Provenzo’s ass to the wall on this thing by pointing out choice has nothing to do with Provenzo’s desire — not “argument” but desire — since, here we have a situation where a mother made a choice, and he’s still got his cackles up about it.
Second: The question was answered very well, even though it’s not central to the topic truly under discussion. It leads to policies of eugenics. Provenzo’s squeamishness about the child being carried to term, in the face of the mother’s explicit decision to do exactly that, is crystal clear evidence of how easy that is. It also belies his protestation that he’s all about choice. Clearly, he isn’t; he’s all about the outcome of the decision, regardless of who makes it. If you still don’t get it, here’s a visual aid that was already submitted before (comment #32): http://tinyurl.com/3rnwm6.
Third: Regarding the point above: As it’s also been pointed out before, we’ve already been down this road, since the eugenics movement was very hot in the early part of the twentieth century. It was very much like global warming is now — simply muttering the words aloud, was like a badge of intellectual power, enlightenment, and a coveted level of higher education. Now it’s a dirty word. There’s a good reason for that: A lot of bad stuff came from the movement, and nothing good ever did. Let’s just not try it again.
Fourth: If the right to abort is an example of what kinds of rights we get when man is put in charge of deciding what these rights are…I really can’t think of a more potent argument for leaving God in charge. It’s no different from, if you were out in your driveway on a Saturday morning and you saw your neighbor washing his car with sandpaper — you might say “gee Fred, why don’t you take that thing into town and have ’em do that for you.” That’s exactly what people like Provenzo are doing when they invent these “rights.” Making a thorough mess out of it. He insists there is a right to abort; in no time at all, he’s expressing his angst and horror that a mother chose to keep the child; it’s only obvious the next step is to entrust this “right” to someone other than the mother, so she can be forced to abort if she’s such a dumb chucklehead she wants to keep the child. State-sponsored eugenics, here we come.
I really can’t spell it out any more plainly than that.
Gary Baker says: Darkwater,
My standard for morality is Christianity, and with a fairly strict interpretation. You may say that is subjective, but no less so than your own. Unless there is a universally accepted standard for morality, which there is not to my knowledge, than pretty much any standard is subjective and to an extent arbitrary. Likewise with the subject of “rights.” The “right” to an abortion was not established through Constitutional means. Rather, it was invented by a majority of a particular Supreme Court. Most people don’t really believe that it is a “right.” If so, they would not be so terrified of a shift in the makeup of the court.
As for abortion never being performed on children, I guess that depends on your definition of children. Considering that dilation and extraction (partial birth abortion) has been performed in children completely capable of living outside of the woman, I would heartily disagree with that statement.
As you say, I understand your position and I don’t expect to convince you. Our definitions of morality and child are worlds apart. I grant you every right to your opinion and I don’t think you are an evil person or anything like that, but the idea of living in a world where the morality you describe holds sway is too terrible for me to contemplate.
DarkWaters says: Morgan K. Freeburg said:
“I’ve often heard it said that Objectivism is atheism.”
Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy but Objectivism is not interchangeable with atheism. Objectivism entails a systematic view of man’s relationship with existence. It contains views on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and aesthetics. Atheism by contrast, says absolutely nothing about what a person does believe in.
Morgan K. Freeburg said:
“So it’s interesting that Objectivism is concerned with the ‘standard for morality.’ How do you find such a standard in a godless universe? The only source left is ‘some people’…so how do you select which people get to decide this stuff?”
This is a very important philosophical question. The answer is, nobody gets to “decide” what morality is. Just like how the law of gravity is a fact of the universe, Objectivism holds that morality is also directly based on the laws of the universe and the biological facts that indicate what is required for man’s survival.
Although I cannot enter in an extended discussion on Objectivist morality here, a few important points are that:
• Actions that enhance your life are moral. Thus, pursuing valuable knowledge, developing marketable skills, maintaining a healthy lifestyle, creating a business empire, seeking a fulfilling romantic partnership or being a good parent are all typically life-advancing values.
• Actions that harm your life are immoral. This typically includes developing a heroin addiction, becoming morbidly obese, binge drinking, not developing your mind, burning great works of art for fun or practicing mysticism.
• Initiating physical force or fraud against others is immoral. This typically includes rape, murder, assault, robbery, burglary, lying to your spouse or making a living as a con artist are all immoral.
• Sacrificing your values for the sake of others is immoral. Thus, perceiving that you should live your life for a higher purpose other than yourself, such as for God, your king, a dictator, “society”, the environment or the poor, is immoral. As you can probably infer, this is Ayn Rand’s most controversial point.
Anyway, I can only summarize, not go in depth, the Objectivist view on morality in an online discussion thread. If you are sincerely interested in learning more about it, then you can either read Ayn Rand’s essay ‘The Objectivist Ethics’ in her book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ or, if you prefer fiction, you can read her novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
Morgan K. Freeburg said:
“Provenzo insists there is a right to abort; in no time at all, he’s expressing his angst and horror that a mother chose to keep the child; it’s only obvious the next step is to entrust this ‘right’ to someone other than the mother, so she can be forced to abort if she’s such a dumb chucklehead she wants to keep the child. State-sponsored eugenics, here we come.”
The suggestion that Nick Provenzo’s Objectivist views on rights will lead to state-mandated abortions is both absurd and ironic. Forcing a woman to have an abortion is a barbaric violation of her moral rights and therefore a grossly immoral act. Objectivism offers a compelling and uncompromising moral defense against state-enforced eugenics.
Morgan K. Freeburg said:
“How do you find [an objective moral standard] in a godless universe?”
This question has been addressed above. However, I wanted to point out that religion is not an objective standard for morality. If God asks Abraham to sacrifice his son Isaac, then for that moment, killing Isaac was a moral act. If God subsequently tells Abraham that he was just testing him, then it killing Isaac is immoral again.
More generally, God does not directly communicate with people. Thus, to know what is moral, you must instead rely on the word of those who claim to know God’s will. This will ultimately reduce to the same subjective standard as depending on a “majority consensus” or a minority of “experts”. Either way, there is no way for an individual to independently verify what morality is, if morality is whatever God wants it to be. By this standard, we can only “know” moral truths through others, which is not an objective means to knowledge.
Gary Baker says: Darkwater,
“However, I wanted to point out that religion is not an objective standard for morality.”
Religion is no more nor less an objective standard for morality than the objectivism of which you speak. You claim that objectivism is uncompromising. Perhaps in an ideal sense, though I doubt. From a practical standpoint, any philosophy is subject to the interpretation of the adherents.
For example, you state that “Objectivism offers a compelling and uncompromising moral defense against state-enforced eugenics.” However, you also state that “Objectivism holds that morality is also directly based on the laws of the universe and the biological facts that indicate what is required for man’s survival.” The problem is that these values can and do clash. One example is the forced abortion situation in China. In an effort to preserve the state, the government has limited the reproductive rights of the individual.
Now, you may point out that China does not reflect an Objectivist society. You would have more background to make such a statement than I would have to refute it, and that is not my point anyway. My point is that governments can and do come across situations where the welfare of the individual can endanger the welfare of society or other individuals. In this case, one or more persons will inevitably be forced into an immoral act, either by denying their own welfare or acting against the welfare of others. Again, we define morality differently, but I cannot accept a moral system as one that conflicts itself.
As for your assertion that there is no way that an individual can objectively know moral truths, it seems to me your statement is self contradicting. I claim to “know” moral truth through Biblical scripture and the indwelling of God’s Spirit. You claim to “know” (at least that seems to be the implication) through the written works of a philosophical system. In both cases, our knowledge comes through others. Therefore, it seems to me impossible that your knowledge can be any more objective than mine. You have simply chosen another standard to embrace.
If you are sincerely interested in learning more about it, then you can either read Ayn Rand’s essay ‘The Objectivist Ethics’ in her book ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’ or, if you prefer fiction, you can read her novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’.
Actually, I quote from it quite often, and with approval.
My contention is that your (and Provenzo’s) grafting of the virtues of abortion onto the Objectivist philosophy is an awkward continuation. It’s an afterthought, involving no consistency whatsoever with the core of any Objectivist worldview.
Not to say Ayn Rand would approve — she did (and she said so). But there’s no rhyme or reason to how it fits in. Not all of what she said made sense. The point I made, stands, that if there is no God in the universe there really isn’t any horror or outrage you can “objectively” express about anything men do to each other…said horror and outrage being the very foundation of Objectivism.
And this…
…nobody gets to “decide” what morality is.
…is moral relativism, which would be more properly describe as a sloppy sort of “Subjectivism.” And I’m not entirely sure how much approval Ms. Rand would show toward that particular plank, either. You only have to read a fraction of her output to figure out that she fancied herself quite capable and adept at deciding what was immoral, and she didn’t simply hold it to be her own unique perspective either.
See, I think you’re making my point for me, quite well. Objectivism holds that “Actions that enhance your life are moral…Actions that harm your life are immoral.” Killing your own babies has everything to do with harming your life, and nothing whatsoever to do with enhancing your life. Provenzo said on his radio interview that he’s childless. Ayn Rand herself was also childless. You, I don’t know about. But I’m pretty sure this is why your sense of perspective is missing.
Correction:
“Not to say Ayn Rand would approve” –> “Not to say Ayn Rand would not approve”
Andy Capp says: Morgan K Freeberg writes:
> If the right to abort is an example of what kinds of rights we get when man is put in charge of deciding what these rights are…I really can’t think of a more potent argument for leaving God in charge.
So your aim is to restore the Dark Ages. Wow. You are ambitious.
For those who want to defend Provenzo, defend his statement that Palin’s decision to have her baby amounted to the “worship of retardation.” (Yes, he quoted someone else who said it first, but he agreed with it and thereby has taken ownership of the statement as well.)
I don’t care what else he has to say or how many ways he wants to twist his meaning to make himself not out to be the complete asshat that he is: that statement alone should be enough to keep him outside polite society forever….
Morgan –
The point I made, stands, that if there is no God in the universe there really isn’t any horror or outrage you can “objectively” express about anything men do to each other..
That’s a patently false statement. Morals and laws were not first developed in relation to God, but in relation to each other in decent society. God was added later to provide an “enforcer,” but there is no doubt that you can “objectively” determine what basic precepts of human relations are required to maintain civilization even sans a belief in the divine. Were that not the case, then atheists would be incapable of forming moral judgments or being outraged at depravity. Since that obviously isn’t true, then your thesis falls flat on its face.
People can disagree how far to define the requirements of human decency in each particular society, but to say that there is “NO” basis for horror or outrage absent divinity is a step way too far.
Gary Baker says: Jim B
“but there is no doubt that you can “objectively” determine what basic precepts of human relations are required to maintain civilization even sans a belief in the divine. Were that not the case, then atheists would be incapable of forming moral judgments or being outraged at depravity. Since that obviously isn’t true, then your thesis falls flat on its face.”
Non-sequitir. A does not follow from B. It requires no objectively determined morality to state that your own judgments are superior to others or to express outrage at what others do. I believe the psychological term is “temper tantrum.” You also use a statement to support your argument (“Morals and laws were not first developed in relation to God, but in relation to each other in decent society. God was added later to provide an “enforcer,”) that you can’t verify. There is no way I can think of to demonstrate that God was added later, etc. Stating items as fact does not make them so.
If you are going to demonstrate some kind of objective standard, you’ll have to do better.
Andy Capp:
Men have been in many states of darkness that had nothing to do with opinion of God. Times in Soviet Russia and Communist China are arguably some of the darkest that men have ever inflicted upon each other, and much of their philosophy was devoted to the elimination of God as a governing influence.
Well said, Mr. Baker. Mssrs. Capp and B are saying “I dun proved you wrong Freeberg” when what they MEAN to say is “I don’t quite understand yer point Mr. Freeberg can you explain further??” It’s a mistake committed when people want to feign more confidence in their viewpoints than what they really have.
For those who still require edification, they need look no further than Mr. Provenzo himself. In his article, he says a baby may be considered a life if & when it is capable of existing outside the mother’s body. In the radio interview, he says it becomes a life once it *is* outside the mother’s body. Those are two entirely different things. It may not seem like such an important distinction to someone who is both outside his mother’s body, and capable of being there. But to a baby who is one but not the other, it’s a little bit more crucial than that.
How does Provenzo get lost in this sea of ambiguity? Exactly the way I described. He believes in no deity, no superior reference, and therefore literally makes up his moral code as he goes along. Much as Ayn Rand did, when she insisted all thinking men have an obligation to nurture themselves and not diminish any part of themselves, right down to the ego — and then, paradoxically, supported baby-killing.
The irony is that Provenzo confused himself because he is missing o-b-j-e-c-t-i-v-i-t-y. There ya go.
Mr. Capp, sorry you don’t like my creed. I’m doubly sorry you feel the need to insult it, just because it’s different from yours. But hey. All you can do to argue you don’t like my faith, is say you don’t like it, and try to bully others into agreeing. Whereas I’ve demonstrated, complete with examples, how secularism leads to barbarism and muddled thinking.
Gamesetmatch.
Andy Capp says: Morgan K Freeberg Says:
> Mr. Capp, sorry you don’t like my creed. I’m doubly sorry you feel the need to insult it, just because it’s different from yours.
I’m sorry that you just embraced relativism.
>But hey. All you can do to argue you don’t like my faith, is say you don’t like it, and try to bully others into agreeing. Whereas I’ve demonstrated, complete with examples, how secularism leads to barbarism and muddled thinking.
No you didn’t. You simply asserted your own muddled world-view and evade huge swaths of history, to include the fall of Rome, Dark Ages, Inquisition, the trial and punishment of Galileo (and just to name a few). You fail to explain away absurdities such as the concept of original sin, the Holy Trinity, the divine right of kings, and the Index of banned books. Furthermore, you and the host of this blog conduct yourselves like infants, with your “asshats” and your claims of “Gamesetmatch.”
> Men have been in many states of darkness that had nothing to do with opinion of God. Times in Soviet Russia and Communist China are arguably some of the darkest that men have ever inflicted upon each other, and much of their philosophy was devoted to the elimination of God as a governing influence.
Worship of God and worship of the group each lead to tyranny and death. Nevertheless, you one-up them: you actually do worship retarded fetuses—and then pat yourself on the back for it. Sick.
> For those who still require edification, they need look no further than Mr. Provenzo himself. In his article, he says a baby may be considered a life if & when it is capable of existing outside the mother’s body. In the radio interview, he says it becomes a life once it *is* outside the mother’s body.
I don’t see this. Link to your source please.
I used to think that the raving leftists were the worst things to come down the pike, because they are, well, raving leftists. On the other hand, you and your conservative buddies here hand present yourself with the thin veneer of knowledge, yet rely upon a linty of irrationalities to justify your perversions of reality.
To be honest I was shocked when I read the column. I haven’t heard anything like that since for a long time.
The problem with Nick’s philosophy is first of all that it only considers the mother (I talk about the rights of the fetus in my posts “If Abortion is about pro-choice, where was mine?” and “The Abortion – Capital Punishment Dilemma”) secondly he sees a Down Syndrome person as not being “productive” – hey Adolf if that is your point of reference, you would have to kill a whole bunch of lazy asses out there, who are not productive – maybe even yourself depending on who sets the standard – it is very offensive what you say Nick – but I assume you don’t know much about history – don’t ever say something like that in Europe they might lock you up) and it is quite un-American because you question the unalienable right to life. Everybody is eligible to live.
Your ideas are old and tested and they have killed millions of people in Europe, just over 60 years ago. Read up on it, think about it, you might change the way you throw big words around like they have no deeper meaning.
TAP
Mos says: “But don’t worry your pretty little head about it”
Isn’t that what they say when they know that they are running out of ammo?
Gary Baker says: Andy Capp,
“Worship of God and worship of the group each lead to tyranny and death.”
Again, statements completely against the reality of what happened. In Russia, elimination of religion was a top priority. The results were tyranny and destruction. Hitler worked feverishly to pull the children away from the church, leading to war. China, Korea, Viet Nam – every place where a concerted effort has been made to eliminate religion has resulted in a totalitarian state rich in paranoia.
If you look back through history, you will find that most human cultures had warlike tendencies and governments that tended toward the tyrannical. The difference in Judeo-Christian cultures is that they slowly progressed towards societies that valued freedom and law. For example, one of the great indictments against Christianity is that it was used to justify slavery. The truth is that almost every culture embraced slavery at one time or another. It is still a fact in some places today. Christian cultures worked to eliminate it, albeit in a slow manner. Strange that they get all of the blame but none of the credit.
Also, you oblige me to “explain away” things that haven’t come up in this conversation. Meanwhile — the youngest among the historical examples you cite of religious barbarism, is about four centuries old. So who’s going back to the dark ages here?
Here we are debating whether children should be aborted in the womb for their physical abnormalities. Who’s advocating this happen? The secularist types. Who’s saying it shouldn’t? The religious types. How and why is it justified? Because the unborn don’t have a voice and it’s easy to define them out of existence.
Why don’t we start debating what this is *really* all about: It comes far easier to the human psyche to oppress others, to deny their rights, after engaging in some rationalization to define the victims as non-people. Christians, Jews, African-Americans, Indians, and now the unborn.
I don’t see this. Link to your source please.
Physically attached to a woman in the manner a fetus is, the woman’s right to regulate the processes of her own body is controlling. Unattached and physically independent, the fetus is thus transformed; it is a person no different from anyone else and enjoys all the individual rights of personhood.
Radio interview here. It’s about 30:30. He is directly challenged with the scenario “eight months and twenty-nine days” — he gives it the green light.
With regard to the baby that is inside the mother but capable of surviving should it be delivered prematurely — Provenzo is inconsistent. And he’s not alone. Certain people are so anxious to be pro-choice, to “affirm the morality of aborting,” and they understand that since this is life and death, in order to make this look ethical, they must define carefully. But they don’t.
Jim B wrote:
“Morgan –
The point I made, stands, that if there is no God in the universe there really isn’t any horror or outrage you can “objectively” express about anything men do to each other..
That’s a patently false statement. Morals and laws were not first developed in relation to God, but in relation to each other in decent society. God was added later to provide an “enforcer,” but there is no doubt that you can “objectively” determine what basic precepts of human relations are required to maintain civilization even sans a belief in the divine. Were that not the case, then atheists would be incapable of forming moral judgments or being outraged at depravity. Since that obviously isn’t true, then your thesis falls flat on its face.
People can disagree how far to define the requirements of human decency in each particular society, but to say that there is “NO” basis for horror or outrage absent divinity is a step way too far.”
Wow. That’s a really long way to say that you don’t know what “objective” means.
-Zirbert
In response to Cassy’s question asking if Mr. Provenzo is visiting all the bloggers who disagree with him, I believe either he or one of his associates visited my post about his article. Of course this commenter visited anonymously and responded to my post by calling me a vicious and contemptible human being. However, I could tell this commenter came to my blog from the site meter on Mr. Provenzo’s blog. This is a password protected site so only Mr. Provenzo or one of his associates who has administrative access to his blog could have done this. I’ve invited “Anonymous” to identify himself and offer something to the discussion other than name-calling. We will see if he accepts the offer.
Andy Capp says: >Here we are debating whether children should be aborted in the womb for their physical abnormalities. Who’s advocating this happen? The secularist types. Who’s saying it shouldn’t? The religious types. How and why is it justified? Because the unborn don’t have a voice and it’s easy to define them out of existence.
Birth at the beginning of life and a permanent lack of human consciousness at the end of life is the proper and just dividing line between an entity that possesses human rights and an entity that does not. To claim that birth is not a proper dividing line is to claim that once a woman becomes pregnant, her body is not her own and if you think otherwise, you have not proven your case.
Cassy, you are being really dishonest and only trying to make Nick Provenzo seem as horrible as possible, but if you actually took the time to think about what he’s saying instead of just the knee-jerk reactions I see, you’d understand that he is not saying anything unreasonable.
For instance, you said his whole argument was based on the idea that retarded people are useless, which indicates that you do not pay too close attention to what you read. Not only that, but he basically told you he is not saying that all women should abort all children with Down’s Syndrome, and you know damn well that that is a fantastic stretch to say that. He said if a woman cannot afford and does not want to have a child with Downs Syndrome then it is moral.
So yeah, I dunno why I’m even writing this. You’ll probably just say I’m a nazi or something.
spike says: sorry renee…i doubt you’re a nazi…at least they had a twisted ideology to try to justify their atroctities. what do you and provenzo have?
“He said if a woman cannot afford and does not want to have a child with Downs Syndrome then it is moral.”
so, ‘morality’ for you boils down to what is affordable and convenient…how truly pathetic
73 Comments