I was being absurd deliberately. Even so, it does raise the question of individual responsibility and accountability. As it is right now, the male contributor has zero right to determining his financial obligation and some women make a living off their uterus as a consequence. If this is solely a womans decision then she should shoulder the responsibility herself, no?

This is a definition that could be acceptable to me, but it would be inconsistent with the Objectivist position.

NO one is selling it. The best way I have had it described is that Freedom and Responsibility are the two sides of the same coin. You simply can not take one without taking the other. I can not remember all the detailed explanation. Wish I could, it was great, but it essentially said that no matter where you look in society and if you try and consider freedom without responsibility you have devastation and self destruction that can never work. The argument was saying that freedom without responsibility is what democrats and socialist want, and is part of the reason that socialism has never worked. They want the freedom to do as they please, but always want someone else to pay for their lack of responsibility.

Those measures may exist, but women are forbidden from using them by their religious dogmas. See Rand's take on the pope's encyclical (1968): https://ari.aynrand.org/issues/cultur...
And why put the burden only on the woman? Is she to be punished for giving in to the man's urges? There are entirely too few women commenting in this thread.

I have a problem with taking this too far. Once you go to 21 you may eliminate any age limit what so ever. My mother is very upset with me because I won't let her live alone and keep her with me. She will be 106 next month and I will be 74 tomorrow. I am afraid she will terminate me so she can be free.

Indeed, you are correct, Zen, about neuronal tissue and brain waves. The evolution of consciousness is one thing that I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation for. I look forward to some answers. Based on how fast biomedical engineering is progressing, I think somebody will have answers regarding brain wave interpretations in the next 20 years.

Silly doubletalk. The decision is the woman's. She does not need to carry it out herself. She hires someone trained to do it. Division of labor, so to speak.

A person smokes cigarettes and develops lung cancer. They are responsible for the result of smoking not the cigarette maker or the store it was purchased at. So according to you the person should not have a doctor treat him, correct?
It makes no difference how you word it, IF the female does not want to go through a pregnancy regardless of the position attitude of the man she had the sex with it is still her body that is the incubator not his. I have heard and I suspect you have too of a man divorcing his wife for the simple reason she was not interested in having children and he was. Please accept that there is no argument since you can not tie a woman down once pregnant and force her to go full term when she does not want too. It is her RIGHT don't you think.

Thanks, AJ.

Rand was a person who wrote a philosophy. She was a visionary and I respect her for that. I align in many ways with what she wrote but I do not and will not accept all of what anyone says unless it makes sense to me.

To me, my understanding of life, Individual responsibility and individual accountability should remove the entire "accidental pregnancy" from the Rand equation. When "accidents" do happen, the condom breaks or a pill is forgotten, there are morning after solutions. Having to take a life, at any stage, these days, is irresponsible.

My reaction in such a situation would be simple..its not my own anyway...I'd pay monthly should I not stay with the woman.

FYI, married 24 years with two grown children. :)

No, I wasn't talking about potential humans. In this entire argument, I was talking about babies who have born.

I didn't down vote either.

Jbrenner, "I have my own moral code because I am my own highest authority. My moral code is close to that of Objectivism, but I do not consider myself an Objectivist." Respect.

I didn't downvote you on anything, tdechaine, but this is the weakest plank of Objectivism.

I quoted Ayn Rand's relevant definitions. I understand the definitions.

I have my own moral code because I am my own highest authority. My moral code is close to that of Objectivism, but I do not consider myself an Objectivist.

Yes, interesting and for some reason I believe that to be relevant. Never thought of Kira as pregnant at the end of the book. Seems like Leo would have been too depressed to make love in the months just before she left. Hmmm Going to have to read that one again too.

The statistical estimate increases exponentially with the age of the mother, and there are other risk factors besides age that made my wife a "poor candidate" to be a mother. My wife is considerably older than I am. No, we didn't do the prenatal test. We were going forward with whatever happened because it was the fruit of our attempt to create. We also knew that it was probably our last chance. My wife had two miscarriages (nature's abortions) already, perhaps for the same reasons. I am glad that all our living children have done well.

Again, I question, considering our advancements in understanding of life and the chemical ability to prevent it from occurring, whether RAND would write the edict today the same way has she had.

Taking preventive measure is a responsible thing to do, particularly since what irresponsibility in this situation may lead to a life being formed.

Birth control exists for before, during and after sex. They PREVENT pregnancy from beginning. They are not an abortion.

Err, morning after pills do exist, are inexpensive, and require only a modicum of effort to obtain.

No, your understanding of them needs work.
Every Objectivist I have known fully understands and accepts her definitions perfectly fine.

No, when I implant my cell culture into a human being, it is part of who that human being is, just like any other body part. It is in some ways superior to inanimate replacement parts, because it does integrate with the surrounding tissue. It has value, but should not be regarded as anything nearly equivalent to the value of a human life. It meets some of Rand's potential life criteria, but certainly nothing more than that. And yet, I do have to treat it with respect because of its potential to give someone a higher quality of life, as well as because I have my pride in my own work.

It's all or nothing - humans vs. potential humans.
Again, grasp what Rand is saying about life and independence. I can say no more.

Neuronal tissue grown in a petri dish generates neuronal signals. The brain puts out several different brain waves and we still have a limited understanding or interpretation of all of those waves.

Trying to discuss this matter based on signs of living tissues just doesn't approach the complexities of what we know as a human life, either philosophically or experientially.

The problem with "freedom is not free" always raises the question "Who is selling freedom" and how do they get away with that? We can properly sell nothing that we don't own, and who "owns" freedom?

If "a right to life means a right to engage in self-generating action" and that "does not mean that" babies or elderly can't depend on others for support, I can accept the "independent breathing" argument to some extent. . The ability to perceive and use the mind independently starts in the womb. See my earlier example of both of my kids responding to my singing to them by kicking in my wife's womb. See what minorwork wrote elsewhere in the thread, and then my response. The independent breathing argument has some merit, but even it has some issues to be resolved. It probably is the best argument I have seen for assigning some rights at birth, but it still doesn't satisfy the sufficient number of self-generated actions definition. I don't necessarily disagree with the assignment of some rights at birth, but I think Rand's definition needs additional clarification.

So taking preventative measure somehow makes it acceptable to have an abortion? That is what you are implying. If an abortion is immoral because the woman didn't take preventative measures, then it must be moral if she does, otherwise you have no position. As such, why is it that taking preventative measures changes the fundamental issue or act?

This is, as I see it, a fundamental flaw in your argument, in addition to its false premises. For your argument to exist, it's inverse must also exist and that inverse is that a woman should be allowed to make a choice as long as she took some form of birth control. To say that this choice then confers additional rights a woman who does not do that is to conflate the fundamental nature of rights.