To me, forbidding abortion reminds me of this Robert A. Heinlein quote:

Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.

In other words, some people just want to be left alone and decide for themselves, while others feel the “need” to control others, to decide what others can and cannot do. Much like the sodomy-as-a-crime laws that still exist in some states of the U.S..

To put it simply: “You’re against abortion? Fine, then don’t have one.”

However, some people have argued that, in Objectivist / Libertarian terms, abortion is an “initiation of force”, a violation of the fetus’ rights.

The common answer is that a fetus doesn’t have rights, because it’s not a human being; it’s a potential human being. In other words, to say a fetus has rights, then we should say that every sperm has rights, much like in the Monty Python sketch.

What do you think?

If you believe your nationality is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

If you believe your gender is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

If you believe your heterosexuality or homosexuality is the most important thing about you, you are wrong.

All of the above beliefs make as much sense as thinking that you are defined by your hair color, eye color, height, and so on.

Why? Because all of them were “decided” before you were born! You didn’t choose any of them.

An individual is defined by his or her choices. Those are the only things in his life that are up to him or her.

And, yet, people give a huge importance to skin color, gender, nationality and so on, as if one of those was their most important quality, their main reason to be proud. It probably gives a comfortable feeling of “belonging”… but belonging to what? It’s not even some group you chose to join! You didn’t decide, or do, anything.

Are all your deeds and your personality so small, so insignificant, that they’re eclipsed by the fact that you were born in a particular country instead of any of the others? Don’t you see how you are diminishing yourself, as an individual, by believing that the most important thing about you was randomly “decided”?

The facts that I’m male, white, Portuguese and heterosexual don’t define me. They’re all parts of what I am, but not the most important parts. I was born that way. What defines me is what I did afterwards. What I chose to do – either good or bad, right or wrong. My choices.

We’re all individuals, and we’re much more than our genes or our place or birth.

He’s right — we should not replace actual physical contact with various electronic messaging. But — and I hate to sound harsh — I live in a place where there are a lot of close-minded people that perhaps pick up a book once a year. And my next-door neighbor is an asshole. I don’t want to talk to him over the back fence about anything.

I feel exactly the same way and have tried, mostly without success, to explain it to friends: human contact is good and all that, but when most people around you don’t have anything in common with you (they don’t read books, they like the “music” that’s on the radio, and they think computer games are a childish waste of time – unlike soccer, which to them is the most important thing in the world), thank the heavens for the Internet and its “inhuman, unfeeling” methods of communication. Without it, I’d almost never be able to have a decent conversation.

This isn’t the main point of the article, however. The rest is something I also agree with – indeed, I’ve linked to a post from the Martian about the same, some time ago. Just because you can produce 10 times as much as someone 50 years ago, it doesn’t mean that it becomes our duty to do so, nor does it mean that we’re “lazy” if we don’t. We’re not in this world in order to work, produce and consume, but to live, and to enjoy life.

Yet, the level of hypocrisy I have to maintain… disgusts me.

And, no matter how much I try to avoid it, I always think of Ayn Rand’s “The Fountainhead”‘s Howard Roark, and how he ended up working in a granite quarry, because he refused to compromise on his principles.

Of course, Rand’s books are exaggerated – they’re books of extremes, of “black and white”, without shades of gray. I have responsibilities, I have a house to maintain, cats to feed, and debts to pay. I have dreams, which, while not directly related to material possessions, include some material possessions in them. So I can’t – right? – leave my job because of a “normal” level of hypocrisy, of intrigue, of “rewarding the bad workers and punishing the good”. Besides, most places are as bad as this one. And working on my own is still a bit far away.

Still…

I sometimes wonder if I’m not really sacrificing myself – what really matters, such as my integrity, my sense of honesty, and my self-respect, for something that, while important, isn’t that important.

Because I certainly don’t like myself as I say “good morning” to the department head, when I have absolutely no reason to respect him, know he’s incompetent and a liar, and wish him the worst morning in the world.

I’ve just read a great article about it: Saying No.

Excerpt:

Saying no isn’t easy, but it’s a required skill if you wish to have any degree of focus in your life. If you say yes too often, you’ll likely fall into the common trap of saying yes to the good while simultaneously saying no to the best.

There is no unconditional yes. Whenever you say yes, you’re also uttering a background no. Whenever you allocate time to one pursuit, you say no to everything else you could have done with that time.

Case in point: apparently, a lot of people these days can’t conceive of someone being alone for a while by choice. They view being alone as a “social failure” – as if the only way to be alone at a particular time is if nobody in the world wanted your company.

This includes, but is not limited to, “romantic” company (or lack thereof).

I live alone, and have done so for several years now, so, while I enjoy any particular interesting company, I am quite used to be alone. And I am certainly not the only one.

But on more “social” occasions, such as a “night on the town”, even people who live alone seem to need some company – no matter how uninteresting, it appears. Several people have recently became shocked when I tell them that sometimes I go out at night alone. They reply with things like “oh, I’d never do that! how can you?”, or “you’re really weird!”, or “why didn’t you call so and so to go with you?”. They can’t imagine that, sometimes, I do like to be on my own (and I’d rather be alone than in lousy company, but that’s another story). Or, maybe, I would even have liked an interesting company, but none was available, and I went anyway, on my own, because I am able to have fun alone, because I enjoy the place for what it is.

Why are people so dependent on others? Why do they see being alone as a sign of failure?

I don’t have a definitive answer. Maybe, as a friend suggested, they don’t like themselves, so they need the company of others (no matter which others) to draw their own attention away from themselves. Maybe they look at themselves and are disgusted by what they see, and they need to be distracted. Maybe their “company” is in exactly the same situation, so it’s a bit like a symbiosis – both don’t have any self-esteem on their own, so each uses the other to fake some. And, apparently, it works.

I know I will never convince people like those of anything, but, to everyone else, being alone at a particular time isn’t a failure or a shame. Choosing to be alone at a particular situation doesn’t make you a “weirdo”. Indeed, it’s healthy to be on your own for a while, from time to time – it allows you to get to know yourself better (of course, that’s exactly what many people fear…). And being able to have fun, to enjoy a place you like while alone is a power – one which many people lack. It’s something to be proud of.