Call it what you want, but a fetus cannot have rights. A woman's responsibility is to herself, not to others; no one else can dictate how she should deal with an unwanted pregnancy.

You cannot yield to the argument that a fetus has rights.

It certainly does not boil down to the "rights of 2 individuals." Rights cannot conflict. Either the mother has a right to her own life and body or she doesn't. Technology does not change the moral argument. And how absurd to even think of thoughts of a fetus.

Rand clearly applied thought/reason in drawing her conclusion re abortion. You simply have to read her arguments.

I will agree that is it certainly preferable for a woman to do what she can to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. But the moral issue stands regardless.

There was no rationalization on her part - read her argument. And tools available have no bearing on the moral argument.

Apply reason: rights cannot conflict. Man's fundamental right is life - his own life. A woman's body is her's to do as she chooses. Her fetus cannot have equal moral status. Period.

Some animals eat their young 😄
Ok, that was fun.

I consider that a mother should have the right to terminate through the 84th trimester. But that's probably just me and I had a vasectomy several decades back so I have no dog in the fight.

yep. there's a lot of people that sign petitions to allow 4th trimester - it's the mother's right after all.

oh, I see what you did there. laughing all over again. LOVE IT

there are only 3 trimesters in a TRI mester

So, your ok with fourth trimester abortions?

I am flabbergasted by the question. Either a woman is pregnant by choice or because she is irresponsible! Isn't that what you call a false dichotomy? A woman can become pregnant by rape, by choice, then discovering there will be undue hardship if she continues, and also by accident. Yes, accidents happen. That is why it is her inalienable right to abort if she so chooses. I can't imagine it ever to be an easy choice for a humane woman. Of course she will pursue contraceptive methods to prevent pregnancies. Did Dominique? Did Dagny Taggert? Come on. What did they do? What would they do?

I'm against abortion but I love your sarcasm.
I don't think I fully matured until I was Logan's Run 30, by the way.

I recommend reading the source material found at http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/abo.... As crass as it may be to some people, the determination by state, church, or another individual of when fetus life begins does not have a bearing on the rights of the host to all of the components of her body. By extension, how much condemnation is there of a mother who gives up her child at birth, or some time thereafter? Would we dictate the same strictures as are proposed for abortion? If society is willing to legislate carrying a fetus to term, shouldn't society legislate supporting that child until death? (What does the age of 18 have to do with it?) I don't believe the advances in science have a place in the discussion of the issue of the rights of a fetus within the domain of the host's rights. I simply wish we could let personal decisions remain personal.

This has always been my biggest disagreement with many liberty minded philosophies as well. We can debate about the exact moment a person exists, but I think any rational human being would agree that a baby is a person and there is no significant difference between a baby that is due shortly and one that has just been born. The baby is dependent on the mother prior to birth, but not significantly more so than after birth as one could give birth somewhat prematurely and still be fine and raised by the mother or someone else.

Therefore, to me it boils down to the rights of two individuals. All things being equal I would normally say let each fend for himself. However, I can not do that when the impact is so very different between the two. It may be an inconvenience for the mother and/or father, but we are talking about the child's right to life itself.

In this case I think you can not avoid choosing between the rights of two individuals, they both can't have free rights in this case. When it comes down to choosing between the rights of two individuals I feel you have to consider how the choices impact each party. In this case it is the biggest right of all, life, v.s. something that may be significant but certainly not as important as life itself. I have to go with defending the rights of the person that wants to live. The baby.

How does all this play in with Rand? I am not sure other than to say the less technical knowledge you have the easier it is to support abortion and we get more knowledge all the time. I look forward to a day when science has developed a way to hear the thoughts of the unborn child...may not happen in my lifetime but it probably will eventually. Once normal people hear the thoughts of these babies I think it will turn enough public opinion to outlaw abortion. Of course it will not change the mind of the serious abortion rights advocates. I am very serious when I say that I believe a significant portion of abortion rights advocates would support killing 6 month old children if the mother did not want them (though they can not get away with actually saying that so they won't).

By what stretch of imagination or thought or feeling does anyone have in the business of any pregnant woman?

She is the individual and she "owns" the pregnancy, she owns the responsibility, she owns the choices, she owns the consequences of those choices. Not you, not me, not government.

Now, having concluded the above, I will note that the only student loan I ever took out ($500) was to pay for an abortion some 50 years ago. Colleen made the choice, we executed (!) the choice and we bore the consequences which, in sum, were to be able to make other choices without the complications of a child.... and neither of us ever regretted the decision.

For me the issue is very simple. Even if a fetus is a full human being with all the rights that you and I have, that does not include the right to live inside another person's body without her consent. A woman has the right to expel the unwanted visitor, and to enlist the help of others in doing so. (Of course, it's wrong to force anyone to supply that help, or to pay for it through their taxes.)

If it's possible to remove the fetus without killing it, it's reasonable for the law to require that option and forbid the killing. But for the vast majority of abortions, it's not possible.

If I may add a bit of levity on a serious subject (and certainly not wishing to offend anyone's delicate sensibilities), my own view is that abortion should be accepted and legal only until the fetus has reached 21 years of age (and I'm open to arguments for later than that). But this is only based on my own experience, and is clearly not the moral high ground.

I might get a little side tracked, but I hope to pull it together at the end.

If we look at the word Fetus in latin it still means baby. It was used to making a baby sound less like a baby and more like an object or thing. If an animal is pregnant we say she is going to have babies.

If we found a living single celled cell on another planet...we would say there is life on that planet.

Teaching a boy through early on and into his teenage years what responsibility means and is and his actions he will be accountable for. Should make his a more responsible adult. If for some reason he can't keep it in his pants he will be more responsible for the girl/women he has impregnated. 37% of poverty in the US is due to single women with kid(s). So yes the boy/man do have a track record of running. I like to call it stick and git ;)

We have plenty of ways to keep from getting pregnant, but even with that there have been over 60 million abortions since it was legalized.

There are lots of people who would like to adopt, so the option of adoption exists instead of having an abortion.

For most who have had abortions, they live a life of regret and depression.

I'm not sure how Rand can support abortion as it does boil down to accountabiliy and responsibility. Unless Rand wanted to eliminate the offspring of those who were irresponsible/unaccountable through abortion.

All in all we all need to be accountable and responsible for our actions. We all can screw up, but we need to make it right when we do.

That's my 2 cents...

The philosophy of Objectivism basically states that an unborn child has no rights. Also, keep in mind that at 6 weeks an embryo is only a group of cells. If a woman becomes pregnant and choses to terminate the pregnancy it is her right to do so.
As for irresponsible sex, when a woman choses to have sex it is her right to have sex. If she happens to become pregnant, well it was her choice to have sex and not take any precautions so be it.
Do not confuse the two actions

Considering that objectivism is based on the mind and thought, it would be hard for me to believe Ms Rand would favor abortion today. There are so many other well though strategies to consider. Another fulcrum of Objectivism is self interest. It seems to me the self interest of a sexually active female would be best served by the many product available for contraception. Just the rambling thoughts of a sexually active male.

I have said before that this is the question that I have the hardest time reconciling with my core beliefs. I believe that the protection of everyone's rights is the legitimate role of government. I believe women have the right to do whatever they please with their own body. If they do not want their child for any reason I do not want it either. My feeling, unreasoning side says good riddance. Yet, I cannot reach a rational conclusion of at what moment that society/government should consider that a fetus is an individual instead of a mole or a wart. I see that some say at conception, some say after the first trimester, some say after birth, when it leaves the hospital and it is inferred here anytime in the first year. I think the question is when and what is the justification. I do not have the answer and rarely see it discussed without people getting incensed.

I seldom if ever take offense and certainly take no offense to anything you have said. Still, I find it very hard to believe that in this day and age we still need abortion as a form of birth control when the ability to stop life from forming is so readily available. Even in those cases you suggest the morning after solutions still apply and are not abortive situations that require much assistance. I'm still curious how Rand rationalized this and more curious to see if she would feel the same today with so many tools readily at a woman disposal to terminate prior to life forming within.

AJ, I don't wish to be rude or insulting in any way, but heart muscle can be grown in a petri dish and at a certain number of cells, it will begin to beat, neurons can also be grown in the same way and will begin to put out neuronal signals at a certain point, a human ear can be grown on the side of a mouse. A fetus in the womb is no more than the developing organs, limbs, and body components that will potentially make up a human at some point. Even the baby, once outside the woman's body is still just a collection of those organs, limbs, body components, and brain material that still has to develop for nearly a year before all those organs can completely function, that brain material can begin to work and coordinate with all of those components through it's neural connections and communicate with it's environment through it's senses, and at that point become aware and start the first steps of reasoning. There are some that won't even reach those first steps.

And as you state, there are many products available today for women to use to prevent the pregnancy and the attachment of the early cells that have passed through the fallopian tubes to the uterine wall and some that will cause separation, but is there really a difference between chemical means and manual means. It is a practice that's been with humanity since it's earliest days by the older women of the clan using a stick or abortive herb mixtures. At least, today a woman or girl can receive the procedure with safety.

As to sexual irresponsibility, when, in what circumstance. Today girls are entering puberty at younger and younger ages, 10, maybe even sooner. Does society hold that child responsible? The girl that gets drunk or high. The one thats retarded. The one that thinks she's found the man of her dreams that'll take care of her for the rest of her life only to see him run out the door when she tells him she's pregnant. Who tells a girl or young woman that her dreams of being somebody more and accomplishing something are over, that she now has to be a mother for the next 18 or 20 years of her life.

Is the practice abused? Everything in life is abused. Are some of those fetuses geniuses in the bud? Maybe, but probably not if raised by a young woman forced into being a mother against her will, struggling to buy baby formula and diapers. The point is IMHO, that girl/woman's body, life, and future is owned by her--no one else, no one else's morals or beliefs. A woman and a man live different lives and I'm not too sure that a man has any business ever criticizing a woman's choices.

It's her's to do with as she will and it must be so in order for freedom and liberty to exist for any of us. There is simply no way around that.

I've said a lot here, and that's the end of it for me. No more.

You are avoiding my question by twisting this into a discussion about responsibility. I've been told, persistently, that Rand's philosophy supports abortion. I'd like to know why and, considering what we know today, how.

Last thing I say on the subject of responsibility: If a woman chooses to keep the child, with all the resources available to her, then no check should be issued. Since she has the authority to murder to avoid parenthood - to avoid responsibility, it is solely her choice to keep and raise the child.