This is very simple. If you don't want a baby don't do that thing that will make the baby. Anything else is irresponsible behavior. And abortion blames and executes the baby for being created in an act it had nothing to do with.

I have given my opinion on all you state. To continue to kick this horse is not productive. And it probably hurts the horse. But I suppose if killing a baby is not an issue neither is hurting a horse.

Well, then, men should also refrain from sex, unless their express intent is to become fathers. Only the intent of parenthood can justify the act of sex, then. Or at least dually unprotected sex.

So, DNA has precedence over a living, breathing, conscious being? Who may have been the victim of rape, incest, or contraceptive failure? Do you consider the use of spermicides murder? Or barrier forms of contraception?

If a woman does not want to have, or raise, a child, and is forced to do so against her will, is this not involuntary servitude?

I happen to believe that all children should be wanted and planned for, and that they deserve a decent start in life. When these criteria are not met, one can see the negative consequences to society.

I see that you equate sex without parental intent as murder. At least on the part of women.

As I explained, at conception, it is no longer the woman's body alone. Her body is now being shared with a being whose DNA is human. The same DNA that will be carried for the life of the being.

Your stats are faulty, as the rate of miscarriage is about 2%. Do some research. A miscarriage is when naturally a baby becomes unsustainable in the womb and dies. Abortion is when something, a pair of surgical scissors, is introduced to killed the baby. Miscarriage in no way equals abortion. That is simply reaching for an excuse to validate the action.

If the pregnancy isn't the desired outcome then the woman should refrain from the practice that makes the outcome. And generally a Mother doesn't look on raising her child as servitude. That sounds more like Planned Parenthood BS.

Unviable fetus?????? Why then when a woman is murdered who is pregnant is the perp charged with a double homicide??? Another stupid invalid argument.

As for viability, the DNA of the human at conception is the same DNA as the human will have at death 60, 70 , or 80 years later. Your argument is invalid.

As I stated above, if a woman does not want a pregnancy then she must refrain from the activity that can create that outcome. Anything else is murder for her selfish convenience. If I don't want a tree growing in my driveway I don't plant one. Therefore a woman shouldn't allow it to be planted nor should a man plant something he doesn't want.

What about a pregnant woman's right to her own body? The risks involved in pregnancy and childbirth? And the endless responsibility and cost of raising a child? It seems to me that it's the potential mother's "right to life" that's at stake here.

Even if adoption is the outcome of an unwanted pregnancy, what about those medical risks?

Do many people know that approximately 35% of early pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)? Is Mother Nature then guilty of infanticide?

I think of unwanted pregnancy as nine months of cruel and unusual punishment, followed by 18 years of involuntary servitude.

All for the glorification of an unviable fetus?

I do agree that after viability is likely (not the 20 weeks they talk about now, more like 24) the issue becomes murkier.

Life with the extremely high likelihood of serious physical and/or neurological difficulties raises other questions. Of course, if the parents are willing and able to assume all physical, emotional, and monetary costs of such disabilities, that's one thing....

I have relatives who have chosen to accept such costs, albeit with government assistance.

I'm looking for a good argument today, but dammit, I have to agree.

hahaha

Lol Jennifer: be advised, BOTH parties are controlled by Council On Foreign Relations since 1933. Yes, the got their first president ~ Hoover, a repub in first, but then their total puppet, FDR would sent political shockwaves through this nation that we are still seeing unfold today. Dem, Repub...doesn't matter in the end. Either way, the CFR will get their puppet in no matter what.

I am not an Objectivist, and don't regard her as infallible. But I expect argument with her to involve logic and evidence, and I haven't seen either in your posts on this subject, FF..

I was a card carrying commmunist for years. No joke, really. And... how does Kim Davis or her sexual proclivities fit in? This seems more like an ad hominem attack than anything based on fact... like a troll trying to stir a pot. As such... good bye.

Your words not mine. I do not suffer from any "authoritarian religious injunctions" but still hold the opinion that Ms. Rand is wrong on abortion for the reasons I have stated. Implying that my comments are an "attack" on Rand and claiming I said the words "damned stupid murderer" are in no way a "reasoned debate" either.

She takes the coercive, irrational intrusion of the religious right very seriously, apparently to the point that she would rather pay higher taxes than put up with it. She has a lot of company as the religious right corrupts and undermines the tea party revolt by fanatically injecting religion into it.

She takes the coercive, irrational intrusion of the religious right very seriously, apparently to the point that she would rather pay higher taxes than put up with it. She has a lot of company as the religious right corrupts and undermines the tea party revolt by fanatically injecting religion into it.

Whatever her intelligence level and politics, the article does not support these bizarre attacks on her as "stupid" for rejecting the religious right.

Invoking the supernatural to attack Ayn Rand as a "damned stupid murderer" is not "reasoned debate" and rejecting it is not "reacting to straying from Rand as blashpemy".

You made a ridiculous statement accusing Lawerence of being a "commie moocher" and "adopted socialist moochmates" allegedly based on an article that only reported she is fed up with the Republican attacks on the right of abortion and support for the nutty Kim Davis. Please contemplate the real meaning of communism and socialism. Objecting to this rhetoric is not an "obsession".

Either version will do :-) Perhaps Wiggys engaged in over exaggerated hyperbole out of frustration, but the explicit phrase "should never be allowed to speak" is unambiguous. This is supposed to be a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason.

You are repetitiously dogmatic and appear to have no understanding of Ayn Rand's ideas and no interest in them. Ayn Rand explained her positions, she did not dogmatically assert them with religious-like slogans devoid of explanatory value. Likewise, you have been given explanations here which you repeatedly evade and ignore, substituting repetitious slogans and personal smears for discussion.

The right of a woman to have an abortion, at her own expense or that of someone who chooses to help her, if she chooses to not have a child, is absolute. It is her body and her life, not yours and not subject to your authoritarian religious injunctions demanding to interfere. Ayn Rand explained her own position on the right of abortion and rejection of religion, and both have been discussed on this forum extensively. Invoking or asserting the right of abortion is not "remarkably uninformed", not "ignorant", and not "damned stupid". It simply conflicts with and ignores as irrelevant your religious injunctions, which are arbitrary subjective impositions based on faith, not the "self evident". Please refer to Ayn Rand's article "Faith and Force" in her anthology Philosophy: Who Needs It.

You have not said why you are here. Presumably there is some good in you which has not shown up in your writing, and you were attracted to some aspect of Ayn Rand. If so, you should try to understand her philosophy, what made possible the characteristics you like, and how it made works such as Atlas Shrugged possible -- instead of assuming that the religious conservative baggage you brought with you is the basis of thought and discussion. It you want to try to understand and discuss her philosophy, and how and why it is so radically different from the intellectual status quo and its tradition, you will find a lot of help here, but this is not a place to push dogmatic religious politics, which are fundamentally antagonistic to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, and not the place for your snide comments attacking those who expect better than repetitious appeals to religion and snide personal attacks. Religious premises are not the basis of rational discussion

No 'Mind' no conscience...it's not one's 'Choice' to kill a baby that was, all but knowingly, willfully made just cause they feeeeeeeeeel like it or the ole woh is me syndrome.

Rape is one thing, but accountability is another. Not to mention, The repubs did not create nor endorse the "War on Women" like all else these days...it's a 'Progressive invention...going waaaaaay back in history.

Oh, the truth is out...PP doesn't do anything remotely nice unless it's in their best interest; which is to be rich at tax payer and illegal body parts selling expense. and screw those that really need a helping hand.

You said what I think so well. I have some really fundamentalist friends who do not believe in gay marriage or abortion rights. Believe me when I say that none of them would ever advocate that the left doesn't have the right to their ideas or deny them free speech. There is no one more intolerant than the left, especially those on college campuses. Of course the exception to this is Hillsdale College.

Agreed. What I think wiggys meant is that people should not give weight to celebrities' opinions on subjects in which there is no reason to believe they are educated or experienced.

You are welcome. Folks who react as you state are simply intolerant of reasoned debate. Something Ms. Rand embraced.

fun with words, right along wit'cha!!!
shoulda said alphabytes, instead. -- j
.

Maybe she'll consider switching back, after (being a high paid actress) she's endlessly taxed to provide "free" college, medical care, etc., etc. to all those Demo voters.

Then again, why do entertainers feel that the public really gives a damn about their opinions, anyway?