One reason the abortion issue will nott go away is that it is more than just the biology. It is a look into the value of philosphy.. We have gone from a situation where the view was prety heavily weighted in favor of legal abortion to the case where it is almost a dead heat

Traditionally, the combatants have fallen into one of two camps "Pro life" and "Pro choice". The "pro life" side gets its name from the position that life begins at conception and includes the embryo and equates the embryo and fetus with an actual human being

The Pro choice gets its name from the claim that, no matter what the actaul facts are, the choice to abort should rest with the women giving informed consent after being advised by her doctor

At least those were the original positions. Now Bill O'Reilly has changed all that. On the last installment of The Radio Factor, talking about the embryo, he said "You can't call it a life because it isn't. It's a potential life" which is a denial of the Catholic and some Protestant positions

It is also the atheistic position [GASP!]

the Devil you say!

At the Ford Hall Forum c1977. Ayn Rand mande that same observation. For those of you in Rio Limbaugh, that was 34 years ealier than O'Reilly.

After making the right call, O'Reilly went on to say that because it is a potential life, you must let it run to term. Rand used that fact to defend her view on abortion

One has to be wrong and one has to be right. who is?

Well to require by law, custom or precept a person to do something implies that you are doing so against their wishes. In the case of aborting an embryo, you are seeking to override the wishes of a person in favor of an embryo, which both Rand and O'Reilly agree is a potential life.

Newsflash! A person is an actual life; just in case you did not get it. Now keep your eye on this because this is where I'm going

Now both Rand and O'Reilly agree that an embryo is not yet a life (living thing) but conclude opposite courses of action. Therefore one of them has to be wrong

Which one?

Well the fact is since the actual is real and true; which means "you can see and feel here and now" and the potential is not yet real or true; meaning "You can't see or feel it in the real world" then the real and true has to take precedence over the not-real or true since one exists, is part of the universe and the other does not and is not. This is not a matter of conjecture but has been a part of logical reasoning and action from the get-go 2300+ years ago and is embodied in such phrases as "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" It is also more eloquently illustrated by the dog, the bone and the creek story

A dog had gotten a nice new bone and was taking it home to chomp on. As he was walking, he passed a creek and noticed another dog in the water that looked much like him with a bone like his. He went to take a closer look and leaned over the water, still clutching the bone with his teeth. He saw that the dog in the water was a bit bigger, with a bigger bone and thought to himself "I am very fast, I can probably grab that bone away from the other dog and be off with it" so, to do so, he dropped the bone he had. The other dog with the bigger bone was a refection and not real, so he lost the bone he had and went away empty, having traded a real for a potential. I guess that is why gambing leaves you up the creek

Since the real is real and the potential is not, the real has the existential advantage and therfore the absolute: total; 100% precedence in any either/or decision because the line between existence and non existence is a steel-hard abeolute. This is doubly true in the case of the embryo, since the living, breathing person who engendered the not-yet life is the direct, sufficient, immediatee and necesary cause and the potential life is the effect and would not be a potential but for the action of the existing cause

As far as Bill O'Reilly is concern, this is not a clash of premises: Both he and Rand accept the premise that the embryo, the subject of this discourse, is a potential life and therefore not an actual. Rand understood that the the nature of the world and in fact, outweighs the potential. Is it possible that the Harvard-educated O'Reilly does not? Is the Pope an atheist? Same answer (well O'Reilly did go to Hahvahd and just look what comes out of there so I guess he may be able to plead ignorance of basic logic). This has to be deliberate and therefore specifically irrational

I have not heard of O'Reilly being excommunicated. Have you? But his credibilty sure sucks

At any rate. the "Pro-Life"ers, by sacrificing the real to the not yet rea no longer fit the label and we do. But then, we always were; from the moment Rand said, in 1959 "Mine is a philosophy for living on earth, with happiness as Man's proper goal and Reason as his sole guide to knowledge"

This is an example of that quote in action