I have a t shirt which talks about arranging meetings with virgins. -- j
.

that is hilarious;;; Thank You!!! -- j
.

I knew it!

Et tu brute.

Die heretic!

ewv, we understand rationality and love Rand and her epic AS. . proselytizing is not intended here. -- j
.

I haven't thrown anything around. I responded to Woodlema's "damn freeking STUPID" hurled against those who reject religious duties imposed in the name of "responsibility". You followed with "A rational thinker does not need religion to figure stupid out" in your baseless religious claim for "rights" of the "unborn".

Ayn Rand's philosophy systematically explains the basis of morality in human nature and the moral basis of rights. Both apply to persons, not the unborn potential. She also explained why a woman has the moral right of abortion and why she rejected the church dogma and campaign against abortion.

You can read her basic principles of ethics and rights in The Virtue of Selfishness, Chap 1 "The Objectivist Ethics" and Chap 12 "Man's Rights", and her position on abortion in particular in The Voice of Reason: Essays in Objectivist Thought, Chap 8 "Of Living Death".

A cell is not "developed" into anything beyond a cell. A clump of cells at conception is not developed into anything remotely like a person or any other animal. There is no rational basis for attributing "rights" to a cell or a clump of cells. It is mystical religious notion.

Maybe we are safe after all -- "Bush did it".

You're the one who started throwing the word "stupid" around. I have no idea what the rights of an unborn baby have to do with Ayn Rand's philosophy.

This is a forum for those interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason, not religious contempt, sarcasm and derision for science. Scientific search for truth and understanding is based on reason and observation, in a process and history you reveal you have no understanding or appreciation of. It has nothing to do with mystic fantasy claiming to be "truth" rationalized by the likes of Creationists pretending to be science. Your authoritarian mysticism does not make you smarter than those of us who have been involved in science throughout our careers. Take your contemptuous nonsense somewhere else.

Science is based on reason and observation, not "authority". It is not a variation on religious dogma handed down from authorities and claims to be spokesman for a god. Your hostility shows that you have no interest in or respect for a philosophy of reason. It does not belong on this forum.

The crude beginnings of scientific observation in Egypt were in spite of their religion not because of it. Any rational person "shirks" your religious proselytizing. You confuse rejection of your militant promotion of theology with "deriding" and "making fun" of it. People here have been more patient with you than you deserve. Take your religious promotions somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

The cells are not undeveloped.

Ayn Rand emphatically and consistently supported the moral right of abortion and explained why. The source and nature of man's rights is incompatible with your religious mysticism. The fallacious rationalism in your sophistry is not "logic"and does not change Ayn Rand's philosophy into its opposite. If you want to understand her reasoning you can read it and discuss it here, but your purpose here is clearly to militantly push your religion despite its fundamental clash with Ayn Rand's philosophy and the purpose of this forum. Take it somewhere else. It doesn't belong here.

You are constantly attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy as you pretend that it supports religions conservatism. It does not. There is no such thing as a "Christian context within an Objectivist framework". Ayn Rand's philosophy is fundamentally incompatible with religion, as is well known. Your personal insults against those who reject your religious proselytizing here are irrational and inappropriate.

I simply point out there were scientists long ago. While I do find a belief in a god in the 21st century ininteresting, I keep an open mind and as soon ason some godist can define what he believes in, then the discussion can progress.

Ayn Rand was neither a conservative nor a liberal. Don't expect religious conservatism to be supported here. This forum is for people interested in learning more about and discussing Ayn Rand's ideas, not those who attack them on behalf of religion.

When people refer to "humans" as having rights we do not mean clumps of undeveloped cells. A clump of cells at conception is not a rational being. The presence of "human" DNA in the cells is irrelevant. "Human being" equated with "human cells" is how you are equivocating on the word "human" to push a mystical religious dogma of "rights" of cells. Sacrificing real human beings to cells reveals the man-hating ideology of the church that Ayn Rand rejected for good reason.

Heinlein is one of my favorites. And, my, how true.

Emo Philips at Golden Gate Bridge video skit re god runs 3:22
http://www.emophilips.com/video/video...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D88DQ...

Oh no, not the Green God. The Red God was bad enough. Now what we all do?

I find your contempt for people much smarter than you amazing, when you personally disagree with them.

Also I have never said I had contempt for science, and again you are making unfounded accusations just like the liberals who attack anyone who disagrees with them..

I recognize Science at its core is a "search for truth."

I also recognize Science is in no way infallible, and is often very wrong even with what are considered "proven" theories, which then become adjusted in astounding ways because of initial errors in the initial theory and premises.

Recognizing fallibility is not contempt.

Edited for missing word.

And so there go all your arguments with that statement, for you pretty much just stated there is no authority with which to refer.

The legal definition of homicide in the case of a pregnant woman has nothing to do with religious claims to "fetus rights" and does not justify it. Your crude comments are anti-intellectual. Calling people "stupid" and railing against çrack whore Sally Ann" while deliberately attacking Ayn Rand's philosophy here does not belong here and you know it. Take it somewhere else.

Well let's see. First most of you deride, make fun of and otherwise shirk anything presented by anyone who has any form of belief in any form of deity, God or intelligent designer. You blast the sources, you condemn the answers in the harshest of terms.

Having said that I am totally in shocked you would use the Egyptians who were one of the most prolific poly-theists, believing in gods for everything to explain everything as a source of authority for anything.

So are you thumping on the poly-deitsts known as the Egyptians? I really wish you would all pick a position and remain somewhat consistent, if my sources are to be ignored and laughed at then so also are the Egyptians whom you just referred to. Or is Amen Ra, ISIS, Hotep, or other of their Gods real and they are really intelligent?.