I’ve noticed that some politically conservative Facebook friends of mine are linking to Objectivist articles, becoming fans of Ayn Rand, etc. For those who are unfamiliar with Objectivism, Wikipedia has a decent summary. For those who are too lazy to read it, a key Objectivist belief is that following one’s rational self-interest is the moral way to live; in other words, “greed is good.” (Another central element is atheism, though I want to be clear that most atheists are not followers of Ayn Rand.)
The Objective Standard, an Objectivist online journal, is reaching out to Tea Partiers, applauding their embrace of limited government and encouraging them to adopt the Objectivist philosophy. The Tea Party page contains a link to an article on the Objectivist position on abortion, by Leonard Peikoff.
Nor should abortion-rights advocates keep hiding behind the phrase “a woman’s right to choose.” Does she have the right to choose murder? That’s what abortion would be, if the fetus were a person.
So far, so good.
But what it actually is during the first trimester is a mass of relatively undifferentiated cells that exist as a part of a woman’s body.
Aaaaaand it’s all downhill from there.
“It’s part of the woman’s body” has got to be the most easily debunked pro-abortion lie. No embryologist would ever agree with this ludicrous statement. “Relatively undifferentiated cells” is also a lie. Mr. Peikoff would have us believe that the embryo is “pre-human,” not only in the first trimester, but until birth (when suddenly, the Personhood Fairy endows it with rights). And then he has the gall to declare that the pro-life position is based on “mystical notions of religious dogma”!
Along the way, he inadvertently denies the rights of conjoined twins: his argument is that anyone who is physically joined to another is a “part” or “collective,” while rights may be enjoyed only by “individuals.”
I encourage pro-lifers to think twice before forging any alliances with the Objectivist movement.