No one told Ashinoff not to "examine Rand's position". That is false. Ashinoff was told, "You are once again in violation of the terms of using this forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in your militant promoting of your religion and anti-abortion agenda. Rejecting faith is the rational position, it is not 'angst'. Your attacks on Ayn Rand's basic principles are repugnant and do not belong here." Ashinoff isn't examining Ayn Rand's position at all and he has not been "seeking clarification", which would require understanding and discussing her reasons. He is ignoring her position despite many explanations provided. His "examination" consists of militant, repetitive attacks, based on false premises that he cannot defend, denouncing those who support abortion rights as "murderers", "irresponsible", etc.

AJAshinoff: "I've been very civil in my responses.". Here is a sample of the "civil responses" and "examination":

AJAshinoff: "Again, I question... whether RAND would write the edict today the same way has she had." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "you move the topic to your favorite rant. There are words I'd love to use toward you but I will refrain from doing so. " http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "Oh, Please. I do not proselytize at any time anywhere. You're myopic angst against anything other than what you believe is again showing through." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "You don't get to MURDER someone because you didn't think before you acted." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "You prophetess would be so proud. You canonize Rand like anyone of faith would canonize their deity. Rand is WRONG. " http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "or truth blurred by the lack-of-accountability murder campaign." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

AJAshinoff: "Ass. Yes, a personal attack. No worries I reported myself." http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/posts...

The topic has been discussed; It has been explained here many times on several pages. The topic isn't off limits. But this is an Ayn Rand forum. It is not open to those who want to attack rather than discuss Ayn Rand's ideas. It is the handful of anti-Ayn Rand anti-abortion militants who don't want discussion on the right of abortion, which lengthy previous discussion they do not acknowledge -- and cannot answer in their repetitious, militant sloganeering and attacks on Ayn Rand's principles. They don't discuss her reasons at all. They attack her conclusions that conflict with emotional conservative positions. They sneer at the defense of abortion rights in such terms as their own mentality of "excommunications" as they demand acceptance of mystical, intrinsic "rights" of any kind of "life", intrinsic "rights" supposedly existing prior to and without any conceptual understanding.

It's Mark Levin's: "These are rights, you're born with these rights. They don't come from reason. They don't come from logic. They are. Period." That is religious thinking, the fundamental opposite of Ayn Rand, which is why they are unable to discuss the topic without rationalizing from a mystical premise of intrinsic value -- and why "human rights" are so arbitrarily attributed to non-persons, followed by rationalizing outrageous accusations of murder, etc. It isn't discussion or examination they are after, they want Ayn Rand's position and the reasons for it expunged for religion, just as they are out to destroy Planned Parenthood in a savage hysterical campaign devoid of objectivity simply because it provides abortions.

Providing explanations and references to Ayn Rand's philosophy on an Ayn Rand forum is not "stubborn televangelism". If Ashinoff were asking an honest question about Objectivism he would welcome help in knowing what to read and understand, not snarl at what he calls "chapter and paragraph as well as a televangelist", and he would not ignore the numerous explanations previously given many, many times as he misuses the Ask the Gulch topics as an excuse to continue pushing the militant anti-abortion agenda.

His "question" began with the false premise opposing "Objectivism vs. Individual Accountability & personal responsibility", followed by the traditional religious denunciation of "sexual irresponsibility" and mystic attribution of "rights" to the unborn with a "heartbeat".

He is promoting unchosen duties with the usual slogans of conservative "responsibility". Conservative religious dogma is not the beginning and end of all discussion. It is not the premise on which discussion begins and is not the criterion for evaluating it. Ayn Rand was not a conservative. Those who want to understand her philosophy should read it, not sneer at it while repeatedly and obsessively promoting its opposite in the guise of a "question", ignoring her reasons while rejecting conclusions that clash with traditional conservatism.

What a disgusting sense of life. It is not found in Atlas Shrugged or anything else by Ayn Rand. The right to choose to not have a child one does not want is not based on "eating our young" in a "choice of death". Our uniqueness is our superior rational faculty required to live, with the ability to achieve happiness in a full and productive life, celebrating our existence, not a "quirk of nature to have the ability to exterminate ourselves because we caused ourselves such great inconvenience" as "we choose death over life." That is disgusting.

Made a mistake? They count on it. Instilling guilt is the means of manipulating people to submit. If you accept their duties as rules for what is moral you are guaranteed to live in submissive guilt.

He has a religious notion of "rights" intrinsic to life prior to rational understanding and without explanation. It's an arbitrary decree based on emotion. Others make equally arbitrary decrees: nothing after a "heartbeat", nothing after "fingers", nothing after "twitches when poked", nothing after "conception", nothing before "conception", etc. They are all based on faith and do not allow rejection based on human reason or even other versions of the faith. Faith leads to force, and so we have the militant anti-abortion movement hysterically propagandizing while demanding government enforcement. The common thread is denial of rational choice, denial of the rights of the individual, and wielding of brute force.

"Err" so what? That is often done because it is obviously easier. It has nothing to do with the woman's right to do something else later if it is not done or does not work.

"Tools" have nothing to do with the moral explanation and the right of the woman to her own body. You can't override that by claiming there are "tools" to do something else. People are not restricted to the limits you seek to impose.

The militant anti-abortionists are trying to turn one possible consequence into a "rule" of their own in conformance with religious thinking and enforced by government.

There is no need to "get out of jail" when no crime has been committed. There is no responsibility to have a child. There is no duty to support "natural" processes, even if they would complete if allowed to. Mankind does not submit to "natural processes" regardless of their consequences. We use our intelligence and choices to avoid "natural consequences" all the time. There is a long period of many months before a birth occurs, if it does at all, and during that period the pregnancy can be aborted. To demand a "natural consequence" and disregard all the causal factors and choices possible over time is not science, it is the religious thinking of teleology demanding duty to stifle human action.

The legal question of responsibility of both parents once a child is born ought to take into account what both parents chose across a reasonable time period available in which to choose. It says nothing condoning the anti-abortionists in the name of a bogus "responsibility", i.e., duty, to have a child.

Correct, but infants cannot be called moral beings either. They lack the ability to reason. Moreover, infants are less dependent than they were inside the womb, but not much. They lack the ability to act on their very limited thoughts sufficiently to sustain their own lives, which are central to Rand's definition of life, rights, and the exercise thereof.

The pregnant woman who does not want to have a child cannot shrug off consequences. She has to abort the pregnancy in order to not have a child. That takes choices and deliberate action at a cost.

Children do not appear instantaneously with sex, their development and ultimate birth, if it occurs at all, depends on a multitude of causal factors and choices over a long period of time. There is no duty to submit to one possible consequence demanded by the anti-abortionists.

The unborn are not people. They cannot commit or not commit crimes. They make no choices in thought or action. Morality does not apply to them at all. They are not moral beings and have no rights.

If you understood the nature and source of rights as opposed to the notion of rights intrinsic to "life" prior to rational understanding you would understand why the "first three months" shows the "essential issue". If there were more understanding of the "essential issue" then "most of the arguments would go away" because the anti-abortionists would recognize why they have no argument. This has been explained to you many times. The "vitriol" is all yours and you know it.

You aren't paying attention. None of that has anything to do with the rights of the woman to her own body or the lack of rights of a fetus. Not only is there no "new information" on the nature and source of rights, you don't acknowledge what she discussed and explained decades ago.

You did not ask a new question. You were answered long ago on previous pages and you continue to ignore the explanations without even acknowledgement of their existence. You repeat yourself over and over with the same fallacious arguments whether or not posturing as a "question", this time beginning with the false premise of "Objectivism vs. Individual Accountability & personal responsibility".

The debate was solved long ago, but one cannot argue with beliefs based on faith and emotion and there can be no consensus with it. We can explain the proper concepts and principles but there is no standard for resolving disputes with faith, which is why we see the militant anti-abortionists trying to impose their beliefs with the force of government and religious zealotry while hysterically attacking Ayn Rand.

You started this thread with a false claim to "responsibility" with the false opposition "Objectivism vs. Individual Accountability & personal responsibility." You confuse responsibility with religious duty. Abortion is not "murder".

You have been told many times why Ayn Rand supported the right of abortion and you repeatedly ignore it. If you were interested in honest discussion you would acknowledge what has already been explained to you and try to discuss it from there. You don't. You continue to push your anti-abortion agenda based on false premisses and the most vile personal attacks as if nothing had been said.

Consider how hard it is to have the death penalty imposed for murder. Imposing capitol punishment for rape would be nigh impossible.

As has been explained to you many time, having rights does not depend on "when life begins". You continue to ignore what kind of "life".

It does not appear that Ayn Rand did not recognize a moral absolute. This has been explained to you before. Ayn Rand did not say she could or might concede an argument to violate the right of abortion, she said the essence is in the nature of the first trimester. There is no excuse for confusion over that stage because it is so obvious that there is nothing there capable of rights. The mysticism and barbarism of sacrificing a woman to that is too obvious.

To "argue" about later stages of development, or anything about any rights, requires a basis of understanding the nature and source of rights to know how to explain any additional factors. Those who are on a crusade to ban abortion don't have that understanding and no such discussion is even possible, let alone argument.

It is wishful thinking to believe that Ayn Rand condoned attributing rights to a potential or that "medical advances" could change that in any way other than preferred, sensible practices where warranted. She wrote: "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

If they can't recognize a non-sequitur it is their problem.

Other people are not "ignored". The only person relevant is the woman. It is her body.

If you mean life as an entity not biologically dependent on a host, it begins at birth when it becomes a distinct person. That is not difficult.

If you mean a parasitical entity versus a growth of cells, you have to define what you mean in terms of essentials. If you mean living cells with a distinct genetic structure it begins after the sperm and egg unite. But none of that matters for having rights because rights do not depend on being "living" alone. That is why the religious appeals in the name of "science" determining "life" are bogus posturing on behalf of religion, ducking the entire essential issue of the nature and source of rights.

Completely agree, which is why I have to question the abortion advocates on their position - especially when they are so focused on proof being the foundation of their philosophy. I could have complete respect for a person who was willing to admit an agnostic point of view on the matter while citing the lack of evidence. I can't respect a viewpoint that isn't consistent, however: if one is going to make the presence of "proof" the gold standard, it must apply to all points of philosophy - not just the convenient ones.