>>>define what's irrational?

Your denial of reality and causality is irrational.

>>>you don't know my individual circumstances.

When it comes to sex and pregnancy, all circumstances are identical, being preordained biologically; viz., having sex MIGHT lead to pregnancy. If it doesn't, hey, have a blast. If it does, TOUGH. You and you alone are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Since the effect of your voluntary action was to bring another human life into the world, killing it simply because it's inconvenient for your social calendar is not an option: it's not an option because it's immoral; it's immoral because it's irrational; it's irrational because it's based on a denial of reality and causality on your part.

Wow. This is the new generation of Objectivists! Complete self-involved hedonists. This is not what Miss Rand had in mind by the virtue of selfishness. Rand was wrong about abortion, but she would not have claimed that you can simply give birth in the ladies room of a nightclub and leave the newborn to die of starvation and exposure on the tile floor (as some women have done).

Good grief. Objectivism has morphed into an "I'll do whatever I feel like doing, as long as I excuse myself with appeals to property rights, e.g., I own my body, therefore, I have no responsibility for the consequences of my actions."

Ayn Rand frowns.

>>>Having sex does not mean I should bear the burden of giving birth.

If having sex results in your getting pregnant, then yes, it does. You don't want to bear the risk of such a burden? You've got options: Have sex by yourself; have sex with other women; or abstain from sex entirely.

The one you stated earlier: "myself" includes only my immediate physical/mental being, and not the effects of earlier actions. That's an error. Your position has nothing to do with Objectivism: it's selfish but irrational (as well as irresponsible).

>>>Many laws are wrong…

So are many philosophical premises regarding ethics — even if held by an Objectivist.

Yeah, I watched Sophie's Choice, as much of it as I could stomach.

"just because I have sex, does not mean I have contracted or made a moral obligation to support someone or become their slave."

uh... yes you have. You performed the act to create the baby. At that point, you are responsible for its existence, and the same moral restriction against infringing upon its rights comes into effect.

You don't want a baby, don't perform the act to make one. That's what your reproductive organs are for; not for getting high.
You want to get high... masturbate.

Nope.

First off, immigration should never be illegal in the first place. Second, you can only use violent force against people on your own personal private property, and even then only if they're actually posing a physical threat to you.

Well said.

I thought one of the moral tenets of Objectivism was not to trample on the rights of another.... such as the baby's right to life.

"same stuff PETA sells".

Which is? That you're not the center of the universe, and your ass isn't its most precious occupant?

No, the part of the analogy symbolizing "unwanted pregnancy" IS RAPE. You invite the penis is, you invite the inhabitants in.

You do realize the D.A. would almost certainly disagree that she can kick someone who is no threat out of her house if it means certain death?

There's no screwing followed by unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want a baby, do not perform the actions whose function is the creation of a baby.

So a creator has no responsibility toward her creation? I begin to understand why Objectivists *really* want to believe there's no God.

" if there is a child sitting at my feet and I have plenty of food and I do not feed her, and she starves to death because of this, I am not committing murder. Even if I have fed her in the past. "

Tell that to the police. Unlike a child trapped in your womb, the child has at least a chance of escaping your presence to seek food. The child sitting at your feet is also not necessarily there because you created it.

"Turning women into slaves"???
Aw, c'mon! RAPE IS ILLEGAL.

This is why I dislike libertarianism. It mistakes liberty for license. I didn't shove a baby inside you and say, "support that!" You either chose to flop on your back, or you were raped. The punishment for rape for the *other* victim, per your philosophy, is death by torture. The punishment for flopping on your back for someone with whom you didn't intend making a baby is, again per your philosophy, death by torture for the baby thus created.

If you own yourself, then the baby owns his/herself. The difference is, s/he didn't do anything to end up in the condition s/he finds his/herself, whether it was bumping uglies voluntarily, or walking down a dark alley unarmed, dressed like a prostitute.

The baby shouldn't pay the price of your inability to recognize what your reproductive system is for.

If women can't behave responsibly with their bodies, then someone needs to take responsibility for them... gee, maybe them there Victorians weren't so dumb.

I dunno from "natural rights". There are no rights save those which come from God. And if you have rights, so does a helpless, funny-looking, inconvenient "oneself" which *you* created.

And you people condemned ME for hyperbolically referencing the anal rape of 2 year old children, yet you advocate the brutal murder of unborn children.

THIS is what reveals Objectivists to be the selfish, self-centered, ego-centric, megalomaniacal creatures they're depicted as.

So your question about my CIA comment was facetious, huh?