The shiniest aspect of Ayn Rand's work is the guilt-free existence of her main characters. It sparkles. When a spark of interest and attraction happens between two characters and develops as the two get to know each other, it could lead to physical union. Is either of them thinking of babies at that point? Suppose the moment catches them unprepared and they ignore the possible consequences, and the woman becomes pregnant. If she has plans that don't include babies, does she have the right to abort? Of course. She has other plans. Does she have the right not to tell the man? Of course. Who's body has the baby? Is she going to sit around feeling guilty for aborting the fetus? Why should she? She had other plans. Is she going to find a way to prevent future pregnancies? Extremely likely for obvious reasons.

If you guys can solve this debate and come to a consensus here I'll buy you all a beer.

A heartbeat isn't necessarily an indicator of sustainable life.
Many brain-dead individuals still have a beating heart.
Sentiency is the indicator of life.
At 12 weeks gestation the unborn are self-aware.
Most states have limits on late-term abortions.

Hospitals are legally required to take all measures to save the baby

+1. Well said.

With regard to my mom's surgery, it was one I wrestled with some. She had mostly recovered from a broken neck eight months before, but now had another problem in her colon. If she got the surgery and it were successful, she quite possibly could live several more years with not a particularly long recovery time. If she didn't get the surgery, she was definitely a goner in the next couple of days. My sister, who also had power of attorney but both of us had independent rights, decided to go forward with the surgery. It technically worked, but she only lived a few more days to other medical complications. My sister wanted to give my mom a chance to live. I was pretty sure that my mom would not recover well. We went with my sister's decision, and my mom died quickly anyway. In essence, we gave my mom the chance to fight to live, and she decided it was no longer worth it. In that case, the non-interventionist principle allowed me to leave that decision to my mom.

Regarding the 26 week premature baby, it is a major endeavor to keep that child alive. I have been through it watching my cousin born at 26 weeks. The hospital staff wanted to try to save my cousin as much for the learning experience as anything else. I don't know about the legality of whether or not they are required to save such a fetus. Without insurance, the question would have been moot because the cost would have been more than the parents could have afforded. In that case, the mom and dad chose to go through with the C-section, and it worked out well in the long run.

Your arguments are quite reasonable.

I am aware that not all Objectivists will agree with what I'll say, but I agree: only it isn't a problem. The thing about birth is that the baby is no longer dependent on its mother for every part of its existence. It is partially independent. It is dependent on someone to look after it. And it is that someone in whom the rights reside when you're talking about babies. The mother has the right to abandon the baby: but as it is now outside her body, not to stop someone else from looking after it. See here for a more complete argument: http://www.monorealism.com/reflection...

Are you serious? The definition of human in the context of human rights is possessing a thinking mind. I have human rights. A woman has human rights. A thinking robot, if such were invented, would have human rights. An alien from another star who's a thinking being would have human rights. A foetus is not a thinking being. Your view of "human" (in the context of rights) is mystical and of no interest to me. Bye.

So you ignored everything I just wrote to make a fallacious point. A heart is not just a glop of cells, its a muscle whose purpose is to pump blood to sustain a human life. How is it not being deprived of its humanity if its a pumping human heart?

I do, completely. But there are many method of birth control that can even be use concurrently. I'm not opposed to abortion per se but I'd much rather,it exist as a last resort rather than a convenient out-patient activity. I'll add, without taxpayer funding.

AJ, please be willing to acknowledge that birth control is not 100% successful. Every unwanted pregnancy does not result from irresponsibility, though I acknowledge that most do.

It is not being stripped of its humanity. It has none. It does not think. It does not even know it is alive.

Human beings, with very few exceptions, are not frogs/tadpoles. :) I stole that from somewhere?

In a human fetus a heartbeat would rightly indicate the formation of a key organ to sustaining life. Because the fetus is still in an early formative state it should be stripped of its humanity? If that heart is a human heart then is it not an underdeveloped human? If these abortions are not human, why is PP harvesting the parts and selling human organs and tissue?

First off, I'm not overly religious..haven't been to a church in years. Secondly, I respect the right for people to have differing opinions on almost anything. Third, I have an 18 year old daughter and a 20 year old son who I taught to value themselves and their conduct enough not to put themselves in such a situation. Lastly, the question of what Rand would think/say today with all the amassed knowledge we now have and the medical capabilities is very relevant.

Irresponsibility is not something I particularly respect, again thats on me. When something I value, Rand's Objectivism, regardless to what extend I value it, clashes with something that makes perfect sense I question it. The individual right to self ownership does not provide a free-pass to kill someone because you couldn't take the time to be proactive or post active with birth control. The question of when life occurs is moot since (again) a variety of before, during, and after sex contraceptives is readily available over the counter just about anywhere. The entire matter can be avoided when both use precaution.

I do not have a comprehension problem. I do have a blind follower issue, toward government, God and even Ayn Rand. I cringe at "because XXX say so."

If rights were determined by the beating of a heart, then tadpoles would have rights. They are a result of having a thinking mind and an independent existence. Whether a woman got pregnant because she was "sexually irresponsible" is irrelevant. It would be relevant if the foetus had rights - but there is no rational reason why it should.

Human beings are unique. By some quirk of nature we have the ability to exterminate ourselves because we caused ourselves such great inconvenience. How evolved of us. Technically then we are not superior to those animals that eat their young or lemmings. They do not function in a universe of choices. We do. And yet we still seem to choose death over life. I think I will call my mom and thank her although I owe her nothing.

Your question has been answered repeatedly, in several ways: on grounds of the individual right of self-ownership. A growing blob of protoplasm is not a "child"; it is an embryo. It becomes a child when it leaves the womb.

You don't like abortion for religious convictions. That does not give you or anyone else the right to dictate to a sovereign individual what they may or may not do with their body. Abortion may well be the most responsible choice, considering all the factors of that person's life.

It bothers you, fine. Just stay out of other people's business. You fret over the many terminated pregnancies. How about fretting over all the welfare mothers who see additional pregnancies as just a way to get a raise in the welfare checks from the government? The unwed babymamas with 5 or 6 kids, each from a different father?

Those are all side issues. The answer to your question in brief, once more: self-ownership, individual sovereignty. Priority of the actual over the potential, of the real over the not-yet emerged.

I've never presented myself as anything other than a Constitutional Conservative.

Please, I've been very civil in my responses. I'm not mischaracterizing Rand, I'm seeking clarification for a subject. Why shouldn't the tenants of any belief structure be scrutinized. It wasn't until another person advised that I shouldn't examine Rand's position and that it need not be reconsidered for the times that I brought up the similarity. How is that not dogmatic? How is that not the type of conviction many Objectivists rail against people with religion or faith for taking? I generally don't accept anything "just because" someone said so.

Again, AJ, where's that "respect" you asked for? Just because you're tweaked by some of the responses you've had to your post, it doesn't justify mischaracterizing Ayn Rand as writing "edicts" like some empress or goddess.

What, in the response of one individual, justifies a negative characterization of Ayn Rand and all the people that agree with Objectivism? Have you dispensed with the "respect that goes both ways" you recently implored?

I come upon an accident, a guy laid out on the pavement, breathing stopped. Legally, to my best knowledge, I am not required to perform CPR. The doctors, are they legally bound to aid the 26 week premature baby? If they do not assist, then have they killed that baby? Legally I don't know, but by my moral taste they have not. Killing involves actively blocking the means to live.

I also had power of medical authority as well as power of attorney over my father. I had not a problem "calling it" and actively calling for a shot of Atavin three days after he lost his mind from prostate cancer gone to bone and him with a broke neck from a fall 4 weeks earlier.

Would it have been OK for YOU to say no? I'm in no position to judge another's moral flavors and on that basis leave the decision to birth or terminate to the woman, the woman whom I can talk with, that knows she is going to die, that has enough knowledge to know what comes of being pregnant to want to birth or terminate. In other words the decision is hers, the responsibility either way is hers, the body racked with a possible fistula, hers. To insert myself into her life by voting for a candidate that would intrude into her reproductive choice on the basis of possessing a superior moral taste is anathema to me.

A man is not required to donate organs nor provide aid to an accident victim. Nor should a woman be legally indemnified by her decision to birth or terminate.

Point back. This didn't deserve a down-vote.

Point back. This didn't deserve a down-vote.

better safe...oh yeah, why bother its just a life? Seriously?