There are people in Colorado who are trying to ban abortion in that state by passing an amendment to the state constitution.  This is a heinous and outrageous violation of our rights as citizens.  Even though I am not a resident of Colorado, I find this outrageous.  This amendment must be stopped!

As such, I am very, very happy to announce the publication of a paper by Diana Hsieh and Ari Armstrong on the topic.

From www.seculargovernment.us/a62.shtml:

The Coalition for Secular Government is pleased to announce the release of its policy paper on the “personhood” movement by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh (Ph.D): The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception (PDF or HTML).

The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life
Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception

by Ari Armstrong and Diana Hsieh, Ph.D.

A policy paper written for the Coalition for Secular Government (www.SecularGovernment.us)

Published on August 31, 2010

Formats: HTML or PDF

Contents

• Introduction
• The ‘Personhood’ Movement
  • “Personhood” and the Abortion Debate
  • Colorado Campaigns
  • Campaigns in Other States
• The Destructive Effects of ‘Personhood’
  • A Legal Quagmire
  • Harsh Legal Penalties
  • Bans of Elective Abortions
  • Abortions to Protect a Woman’s Health
  • Abortions for Rape, Incest, and Fetal Deformity
  • Bans of Common Birth Control Methods
  • Bans of Common Fertility Treatments
  • Bans of Embryonic Stem-Cell Research
  • Amendment 62 Is Anti-Life
• Individual Rights and Abortion
  • The Compromise of Roe v. Wade
  • Today’s “Pro-Choice” Rhetoric
  • The Core Arguments for “Personhood” Laws
  • Rights in Pregnancy
• The Morality of Abortion
• ‘Personhood’ and the Separation of Church and State
• Amendment 62 Is Not a ‘Message’
• Notes

From the Introduction

Amendment 62, set to appear on Colorado’s 2010 ballot, seeks to legally establish personhood from the moment of conception, granting a fertilized egg (or zygote) full legal rights in the state’s constitution. Following in the footsteps of 2008’s Amendment 48, Amendment 62 is the spearhead of a national campaign to outlaw abortion and other practices that could harm a zygote, embryo, or fetus.

If fully implemented, Amendment 62 would profoundly and adversely impact the lives of sexually-active couples, couples seeking children, pregnant women and their partners, doctors, and medical researchers. It would subject them to severe legal restrictions, police controls, and in many cases protracted court battles and criminal punishments.

Amendment 62 would outlaw abortion, even in cases of rape, incest, terminally deformed fetuses, and danger to the woman’s health. It would prohibit doctors from performing abortions except perhaps in some cases to save the life of the woman, thereby endangering the lives and health of many women. In conjunction with existing statutes, Amendment 62 would subject women and their doctors to first-degree murder charges for willfully terminating a pregnancy, with the required punishment of life in prison or the death penalty.

The impact of Amendment 62 would extend far beyond abortion into the personal corners of every couple’s reproductive life. It would outlaw many forms of birth control, including the pill, IUD, and “morning after” drugs. It would require criminal investigation of any miscarriages deemed suspicious. It would ban potentially life-saving embryonic stem-cell research and common fertility treatments.

Amendment 62 rests on the absurd premise that a newly fertilized zygote is a full human person with an absolute right to biological life-support from a woman–regardless of her wishes and whatever the cost to her. The biological facts of pregnancy, in conjunction with an objective theory of rights, support a different view, namely that personhood and rights begin at birth. Colorado law should reflect those facts, not the Bible verses so often quoted (and creatively interpreted) by advocates of Amendment 62 and other “personhood” measures.

About the Authors

Ari Armstrong publishes Free Colorado and co-authors a column for Western Colorado’s Grand Junction Free Press. He is the author of Values of Harry Potter: Lessons for Muggles, a book exploring the heroic fight for life-promoting values in the Potter novels.

Diana Hsieh founded the Coalition for Secular Government in 2008. She earned her doctorate in philosophy from the University of Colorado, Boulder. She is currently working on a book on Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged, based on her series of podcasts at ExploreAtlasShrugged.com. More of her work can be found at DianaHsieh.com.

Read The ‘Personhood’ Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception (PDF or HTML).

When Shea sent out the announcement that he’s hosting the Obloggers’ Carnival, he said:

Get it here http://blog.shealevy.com/2010/09/02/fresh-hot-objectivist-roundup/ and tell all your friends, co-workers, and sexual partners!

So, now you know.

Mark Wickens sent this article out to OHomos yesterday.  It’s a brief post by the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) president, Maggie Gallagher, on Ayn Rand’s view of sex.  It’s on the National Review, so gird your loins.

I’ll let you read it on your own, but I want to call out two remarks she made:

Ayn Rand’s “depiction of sex is anything but a “release of biological desire” between sexually marketable equals.”

and

“It has never been quite clear to me why in Rand’s world the most desirable men don’t sleep with other achieving men (even though Rand would be appalled by the idea)”

The first statement seems innocuous and accurate enough on the surface, I guess.  My understanding of Objectivism and the power of my own eyes, though, leads me to be confused about Gallagher’s apparent disagreement with that view.

The phrase “sexually marketable equals” is confusing, but I want to point something out to you that make shock and disturb you.  (I was shocked and disturbed when I found out.)  Please take a seat if you are not already so positioned.

Ready?

Ok. So: Men have penises and women have vaginas.  And by “vagina” I mean that they don’t have penises.  Also, women have squishy parts affixed to their torso called “breasts” and those organs are usually very apparent when you observe them next to males.

These facts and others less apparent lead me to this conclusion: Men and Women are not sexually interchangeable creatures. I know that if you swapped my beau’s brain into a woman’s body I would be quite upset and I would not be inclined to have sex with him.  I feel confident that Ms. Gallagher would agree with me here.

So, Ayn Rand was unmistakably clear about the roles of men and women in sex and, consonant with the physical reality that is the difference between men and women, those roles are different but compatible.  Ms. Gallagher’s summary of those roles is reasonably good for a non-Objectivist, I think.

I also think that in this Post Brown vs. The Board of Education world, it is easy to understand why she would leap to the conclusion that Rand’s view of men and women are not “equal” given the fact that Ayn Rand insists on pointing out that they are different from one another.

But if you ask me whether or not I like men or women more, sexually, I will consistently tell you that I like men.  Does that not state clearly that I think men are more valuable than women in a sexual context? I sure hope it does. I don’t think it would help anyone to be confused on that point.  Maggie is a straight woman, so she must hold similar values.

Holding those values and understanding the source of those values is not a claim to any objective superiority, though.  Rand didn’t think women were sexually inferior to men.  She thought they were sexually compatible with (straight) men by virtue of their physical nature as women.

So, the underlying premise that the hateful, mistaken, and rude Ms. Gallagher is operating under is that of an inapt sexual egalitarianism.

That leads me to her second comment.

When I first discovered Ayn Rand’s work, I was also confused about why the men in her books didn’t have sex with other men because they were so amazing and handsome and strong and smart and cool and everything good.

Well, the reason is simple: they’re men.

Dagny Taggart in Atlas Shrugged is NOT “just, you know, a pretty competent railroad executive — for a woman.” The novel is eleventy million pages of examples of how Dagny Taggart is the most competent railroad executive in existence.  There is no railroad executive in the book better than her.  Sure, she has equals as a businessperson in other industries, but when it comes to running a railroad there is not a man alive in Atlas Shrugged who could hold a candle to her.

Also, Dagny Taggart is smart.  She’s smarter and more mentally capable than a good number of the men in the book.  I’d say the only man in the book who could be argued to be smarter than she is is John Galt, actually.  She seems clearly on par with D’Anconia and Rearden in the brains department.

Ayn Rand took care to show us Dagny in a number of contexts.  She talks to scientists. She talks to presidents. She works with other business executives.  She talks to composers.  She flies a damn plane into the mountains by herself!  She does all kinds of things that show that Dagny Taggart is as good, if not better, than most of the men you see in the novel.

But she is a woman.  And there is only one context in which her being a woman has any direct importance: sex.

Rand’s view of men and women in sex is perhaps not readily apparent to the modern eye.  If you hold that men and women are inherently equal, they’re also infinitely interchangeable in every single way, then you certainly will not be able to comprehend why Rand didn’t have Rearden and D’Anconia in a sweaty, rough-and-tumble embrace, each struggling to overpower the other by taking him to ever higher levels of pleasure until one of them submits and loses himself completely to the erotic prowess of his partner and becomes the quivering, panting instrument of his satisfaction– even though I TOTALLY wanted that to happen, like, several times.

That’s where the contradiction in Gallagher’s view is.  On one hand, she scorns Rand for pointing out that men and women are different biologically and that means they hold different sexual values because, in Gallagher’s eyes, that means that men are superior to women and we ought to see men and women as undifferentiated equals in sex as well as other contexts.  But on the other hand she argues that men and women are not interchangeable — which is what we would necessarily conclude if we held that men and women were undifferentiated equals — when it comes to sex. Why? Because, according to Gallagher, they’re different biologically and that should mean they hold different values sexually and that’s why men should only marry women.

The problem with Gallagher’s view — and that of so many others today — is that there is some sort of inability to differentiate between the relevant facts in particular contexts.  When it comes to sex, the difference between men and women are really, really important.  Elsewhere, those differences are not important at all even if they do affect how the individual behaves within those contexts. But Gallagher doesn’t seem to know why and rejects Rand’s explanation out of hand because it doesn’t jive with her view of men and woman in other contexts, like business.

Gallagher is also rabidly, ignorantly, hatefully, and stupidly opposed to gay marriage.  Why?  Because contrary to her views on “equality in sexual marketing” (Seriously, what does that even mean?) she contends that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

There’s an ironic inversion there.  When it comes to sex, Gallagher seems to want to say that men and women are equals, but when it comes to politics, marriage as seen by the government, she vehemently holds that men and women are not equals.

Note: Gallagher is certainly aware of the physical differences between men and women, but she refuses to draw any conclusions about how those concrete differences might affect behavior and sexual values.  So, I’m forced to say that she sees men and women as equals but since she offers no indication of what it means in reality to be “equal” it remains a bland, meaningless concept in her use of the term. If she did offer up any such indications, it would draw her closer toward Rand’s view of men and women in sex.  My use of the term “equal” in the second part of the above statement refers to civil rights and recognition by the government in defense of their individual rights.

If men and women were equal in the eyes of the government — where the concrete difference between their sexes are irrelevant — then they would be able to marry either other men or other women as they may so choose.

That’s the beauty of Rand’s view.  Ayn Rand held that men and women are equals in every way — in sex they are different, but complementary elements to one another in very particular ways, but still “equal” in the metaphysical sense of the term. Therefore, Rand also held that they should be equals in the eyes of the law, each having the same rights and are entitled to the same level of defense from the government.  She held that for both gay and straight people as well.

Maggie Gallagher, unfortunately, is confused and, as a result, sexist.

One of my favorite argument on behalf of gay marriage is to point out that it is essentially sexist to forbid gays to marry.  The argument goes like this:  Women are permitted to marry men, but men are not.  Men are permitted to marry women, but women are not.  I see no rational foundation for offering men and women different privileges in the eyes of the law.

By a similar argument, I am vehemently and angrily opposed to those who would rescind a woman’s right to have an abortion.  An individual’s body belongs to themselves.  No one, NO ONE, has any business at all telling a person what they may or may not do with their own body.  It offends me to my core as a human being that someone might even suggest that I seek their permission or sanction to do as I want with my own body.

That goes double for those whose bodies might be dependent upon my own.

It is unconscionable, outrageous, offensive, evil, sick, and wrong that people suggest that a non-person such as a fetus has any claim on any woman’s body, least of all its host’s body.

If we allow fetuses, non-persons, to make that claim, what hope do we have of preserving our rights to our property? Our right to have sex with whomever we please?  Our right to get tattoos and piercings?  Our right to get jobs we enjoy?  Our right object to the actions of our government and military?  Our right to speak our minds?

As a man, I see this fight against abortion as a fight against my own life as well as the lives of women for whom I care very deeply.

So, I urge you all to pledge some money — even a dollar — to support Diana and Ari as they fight on this issue.  They’re fighting for your lives as well as their own.  Even if you don’t think abortion is a good choice for your own life, fight for your rights.  FIGHT!

I’m totally stealing this idea from Rational Jenn. First of all, I think OHomos is off to a great start.  We just started in July and there are 56 members!  WOO!  We even had 206 posts in that time!

Granted, a lot of the posts contain some idle chatter and one-line banter.  We’re working on that, though.  Here are some of the things we talked about in July:

• Objectivism and Homosexuality
• Parenting GBLT children
• Masculinity and femininity
• Gays and gun rights

And, of course, there’s been a bit of an exchange of pictures of hot guys and a few ladies… and some animated gifs of jiggling boobies.

It’s been a fun time, so let’s make it another exciting and interesting month on OHomos!

3 Ring Binder has it! Get you some!

WOOHOO!  Well, I am very pleased to announce that Diana has recently added OHomos to her empire of Olists!!!  I’m superduper excited to be managing it.

Anyone can join the OHomos list including straight people and non-Objectivists; however, for the time being only the actual Objectivist GLBT folk are permitted to post.  Everyone else is obliged to lurk

Here’s the official description:

OHomos is an informal mailing list for for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender (GLBT) Objectivists (and others) interested in the the proper application of reason, egoism, and rights to matters of mutual interest. Its purpose is to facilitate friendly discussion amongst GLBT Objectivists about dating, sexual health, social events, and “gay rights” … The list aims to promote Objectivist ideas in GLBT circles and provide a friendly social space for GLBT Objectivists too.

Basically, it’s for Objectivist activism and a thoughtful discussion of GLBT (I am SO tempted to write Gay BLT, but I think that’s cuz I have bacon in my fridge right now and what’s better than GAY bacon? Nothing, I bet.) issues as well as fun, social stuff.

For the time being, we’re just making a call for membership and I am happy to report that as of writing this we have 38 members of the list!

Posting is suspended.  But at some point later this week, we will allow posting to begin.  YAY!

Check it out over at The Playful Spirit!

Since I’ve decided to become more active in promoting Objectivism, it’s become incumbent upon me to think of ways I can be a better activist.  Danielle Morrill wrote up several good suggestions the other day for tactics one can use to be an activist, but I was trying to think of ways that a person can actually seek out opportunities to respond or join a discussion and inject Objectivist ideas.  I’m talking about opportunities to write OpEds and Letters to the Editor (LTEs).

Here are some thoughts/info:

• Set up Google Alerts to email you when areas of your interest are reported on in the news.  (Note: look for “official” news sources, not blogs.)
  • Find out who your representatives are — both locally and federally — and add them to your address book.
• Practice good OpEd use.  I found this article on 15 Ways to get an OpEd published.
  • You can send the same letter to lots of publications, but be sure to publish it yourself as well. The point is to be seen and heard!
• Practice writing good letters to Congress.
  • Distribute said letters to your group, blog, friends for their use as well!
• If you’re trying to get in a particular publication, why not watch that publication and see what their editorial standards seem to be. NY Times Opinion Page is here.
• Don’t be afraid to aim a little lower sometimes, though.  Writing your local paper is a good way to practice and share the ideas within your community.
• If you like talk radio, keep your favorite program on speed dial, BUT! Keep your comment quick and pithy. (Danielle also jotted out some tips on asking questions on OCON that could apply here.)
• Start a community group.  This will help exchange ideas within your group and provide a resource for planning events like protests, marches, and even boycotts. (I wonder why I rarely hear of Objectivists calling for a boycot of some product or company.)

There is a long history of political and social activism.  I think I’m going to have to study more about that and see what I can learn and possibly adopt.

UPDATE: One more tactical suggestion: Donate to worthy organizations like the Ayn Rand Institute or the Anthem Foundation or even a University Objectivist club.

The latest edition of the Obloggers’ Carnival is up!