Txs. I don't do well with the whole PC thing.

Was it misogyny when she engaged in sex? If consensual, then that argument is nonsense.

Pregnancy is and can only be the result of sex. No one here is going to argue that rape is or should be tolerated. If my wife were in charge, convicted rapists would be eunuchs - not 3-5 year prisoners let loose on the world again. But the choice to engage in sex is that: a choice. To disassociate the choice (sex) with the consequence (potential pregnancy) is disingenuous. Abortion is at best a mitigation of consequence - not an originating choice.

The problem still comes back, however, to whether or not one can positively identify human life. You have not disproven the point, just presented one of the cases under which any such objective and accurate meter should read negative. Your argument only underscores the point at hand: that of identifying human life in the first place.

I'm just glad that Objectivists don't believe that same tripe. The Women's Lib movement hasn't done anyone any favors.

I'd give ya a thumbs up if I had that right but I'm not delivered into the Gulch yet as in full possession of my humanity. I'm developing still.

I've mirrored your assessment of the non-arbitrary symbology and reality that the umbilical cord's function demarcates the final bridge to independence gained.

The result of the sex act is not guaranteed to be a breathing healthy child. Somewhere in between humanity develops unseen, unobserved.

The sex act is unrelated to the consequence so says the headless male mantis. Even in humans it is rarely the right time to have a child but always the right time for sex.

The surrender is to the sex act itself. That there is seen a woman's surrender of her sole dominion of her body to a new life has yet to be established as the norm.

Your sense of evolution as advancing with intent is wrong. We are NOT superior to animals, we ARE animals. Men are not superior to women. For men to hold power of their reproductive decisions end game is hubris.

A molar pregnancy bears human DNA, though upon examination you'd find in it no humanity. Examination is critical to the determination of the developing humanity of the unborn. Placing undue hardship on a woman deciding to birth or terminate over and above what is required of a man to have a vasectomy reeks of misogyny.

Are you not making demands on a woman because she does not share your taste of what constitutes responsible choice? Donate your spare kidney then, donate blood, an eye. You have more than you need to survive. I don't demand that my own tastes be held over your actions as you hold yours over the actions of a woman. Why? It is not business to find enough knowledge of her life's actions that would give me authority in even discussion to hold my sense of responsibility sufficiently righteous to supplant her own.

+1 illustrating the Law of Identity.

We both agree that rape is coercion and unsanctionable in any reasonable society.

A woman doesn't ever choose to get pregnant at all, however. It is not in her power one way or another. She can not control either the release of the egg or the movement of the sperm. She has no control over the penetration of the egg nor the implantation of a fertilized egg in the uterine wall. She can not control her own monthly cycle to coincide with her wishes. The limited control she has over the process (excluding rape) is to choose if and when she engages in activities which make pregnancy possible and for which her body (and his) was designed.

If she engages, however, she is taking that risk level above zero. She is choosing to spin the wheel of chance. And once spun, it can be neither halted nor un-spun. Choice leads to consequence however "undesirable" they may be. There are a whole host of such choices in this world. What you are focusing, however, is on a mitigation of consequence due to inconvenience - not the choice itself.

I think the other thing that should get brought into play is that most people find joy in children. It's pretty hard not to look at an infant's face and not feel something soften inside - something that says that this is an innocent, precious person full of potential. I look back at my life and find that most of the happiness in my life has been my interactions with family. The smiles and squeals of delight from my 1-yr-old son as I toss him into the air are precious and irreplaceable to me, as are my interactions with my other children such as those from playing games last night. One can look at abortion as avoiding responsibility, or as foregoing the happiness they could be having. Why is it that sex is so pleasurable? Is it not a mechanism of the species to encourage its propagation and continuation? Why is it that some assume that they can have the short-term pleasure and not the long-term consequences of children?

I'm not going to belabor "belief structure" because I see no point to it. I suspect, Rand has set her terms and we're talking, using the same words, with separate contexts. I'll continue to call it as I see it when a situation presents itself. I'll also, as always, accept the criticism and the consequences for speaking my mind. I'd glad you share the aversion to "just because" as well.

A cursory study of Objectivism and Ayn Rand's novels shows it is not a "belief structure"—because it is not based on belief. It would also show that the idea of "followers" accepting "edicts" and "pronouncements" from anyone is contradictory to Objectivist philosophy. So, I'm not sure how you think you are not mischaracterizing AR or people that appreciate Objectivism.

If you think someone is being dogmatic, then take up their perceived dogmatism with them. After being in the Gulch for two years, I don't think I'm revealing new information you haven't seen before.

I generally don't accept anything "just because" someone said so, either; so, please, drop the veiled barbs or the pretense they are not.

http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

Thank you for calling out the PC bullies.

I am a woman, and commenting, and commenting on only about 1/3 of the things I'd like to be commenting on. :)

I think the rape argument exactly shows my point. If you focus on rights for fetuses- it should not matter how the pregnancy occurred. So in every other instance you focus on the rights of an unborn fetus EXCEPT in the case of rape. Why doesn't the fetus have a right to life regardless? The rights begin and end with the woman and that includes her right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. The fetus has no right to claim. Further, any laws that force a woman to carry a fetus to term is slavery.

Given how many men run out on their obligation, and how the woman is obligated to the child until it's at least 18, I think the woman's "hook" is much bigger than the man's in this instance.

Not at all.

Actually, not that many regret the decision.

http://time.com/3956781/women-abortio...

They're $50 where I'm from. Certainly less than an abortion or raising a child, but hardly inexpensive.

Modicum of effort...well, depends on where you're from. They aren't available at any of the pharmacies in my town, so if you're a teen without a car, you're SOL.

Shall I require to know how a woman thinks so that she can garner my approval for her to birth or terminate? I do not hold her captive to my opinion of her thought processes. She, not me, lives with those.

Outstanding reply, @khalling. You have my vote. To avoid being a living incubator forced to it by another, undue hardship in carrying out her choice is a non-objectivist position to hold. Texas is on that path.

The fundamental question is whether or not the embryo is human life separate and apart from the mother. If it is, it deserves the protection of being a human life. That would mean that it is not an extension of the mother at all.

The real question, and one which remains highly problematic and why the question got raised is how to objectively quantify and identify human life. And that is the problem brought up by AJAshinoff: if not at conception, then precisely when? Objectivists can not accept a subjective answer on the matter - it must be a concrete one which can be verified by science. If not, one is left to make a subjective judgement call or to err on the side of caution.

The dependency/viability argument is a non-starter, as children are dependent until closer to seven or eight years old (having several, I'm quite aware of the drain on my finances). One can use brain wave scans and heartbeat detections to draw similarities to humans, as does the DNA. All show that - if given time - the end product will be a human being according to anyone's definition. The question is whether or not respect for life is inherent or earned.

Precisely. The argument still boils down to when life begins. And as far as I know, we have no method or scientific instrument which can detect it and objectively call the matter.

Having sex is choosing to take the risk, however. One does not become pregnant through abstinence. Is she primarily affected? Yup. Which is why that choice should never be undertaken lightly.

Does that mean that when that choice is taken away through rape that the woman is responsible? No. The perpetrator is and should be held responsible (my wife advocates for mandatory castration). But that is by and far away the minority cause of pregnancy, not the majority. Most abortions are for voluntary pregnancies.

Well said. I think many people tend to ignore everyone else involved, including the man who provided the sperm to impregnate her. There are also many women who after having an abortion regret the decision. There are even more who when shown a picture of the fetus on ultrasound forego the decision.

When does life begin? THAT is the $64 million question which must be answered.