coal, you bring up an interesting question. You believe that the protection of everyone's rights is the legitimate role of government.

I differ with that in that I don't give that role to government. I maintain, that my self defense is my responsibility and I give to government only the role of retaliatory force to be used against those that I've failed to successfully defend against, or when I call them and ask for their assistance. Although government takes the position, that it can tell me when I've been offended against by others and even what is an offense, that is not Objectivist--that's statist and socialist.

See above

No, I merely rebutted the argument that the baby has no senses. You are assuming the child can not think. I have no doubt it does not think the same things we do, how could it given its environment and short life span. However, like I have said previously, I feel confident that one day technology will provide us more evidence that the child is thinking and feeling pain. It is certainly not thinking about deep thought issues, but neither is a severely retarded child. You would still consider that retarded child a person with complete rights would you not?

As for the test for mongoloidism, before getting such a test, my wife's OB/GYN said that our 2nd child had a 10% chance of having Down's syndrome, and brought up the subject of an abortion even before recommending a prenatal test, even after showing us ultrasound photos. I am glad my wife and I made the choice we did. That daughter starts college tomorrow and has two part-time jobs.

If no rights, than no choice to exist - playing with words. Existence of many things are sacrificed; e.g. environmentalists also complain about altering our environment for our own good. Only human beings cannot morally be sacrificed.

So true! People often try and present exceptions to this (like rape) but no one ever provides a strong argument why it is not true in 99% of the cases.

The mother has a right to both choose to have sex and to abort an unwanted fetus. She does not have to answer to you or anyone else.

You are not trying to understand the moral argument Rand made. It has nothing to do her options. Her right to her body is fundamental.

That is a trick question, Zen. There is another option. According to Objectivism, both children have to generate enough actions on their own to sustain their own lives. I can save neither of them, and in fact, it would be altruistic to save either of them. If I save either of them, it would only be because I see one of them as in my best interest, such as my own child. If either of them gets out of the way of the train, then it is good for that person. If not, then that person dies. In either way, the result should not affect me if the child is not mine.

I am not confusing biological life with a human. What I generate in my cell culture lab is not human life until it gets implanted into a human being. It is "alive", but has no rights per se.

And perhaps it is better to leave this whole subject alone with it as a woman's choice, because to consider it otherwise would not be 'good form.'

jim, I think too many confuse biological life with a human. A thought experiment: A fully cognizant and aware teenage child and a mongoloid child, incapacitated on a train track--you only have the ability to save one, there is no other option. Which do you save?
Some will say that's not the same, but a prenatal test is fairly common today to determine mongoloidism and other defects, and many parents choose abortion of that baby at that point. They might say they're choosing the quality of their life over the fetus, or choosing to make room for a hopefully normal child that can become a human.

A clump of cells is a potential and an unborn human that is fully formed a also a potential. I doubt that Rand would change her mind for one second or less.
The actions of the couple if consensual vs rape are theirs and if pregnancy is a result so be it. Daily I see women of all ages here walking with toddlers. In my opinion they are irresponsible because they have chosen to bring new life on the planet even though these toddlers will not get much of an education and become responsible adult people because their parents weren't to begin with.
I will go no further than to say the subject should never have been broached.

If parents are acting as surrogates, then by definition, the newborn is not independent.

From Galt's speech:

"Independence is the recognition of the fact that yours is the responsibility of judgment and nothing can help you escape it—that no substitute can do your thinking, as no pinch-hitter can live your life—that the vilest form of self-abasement and self-destruction is the subordination of your mind to the mind of another, the acceptance of an authority over your brain, the acceptance of his assertions as facts, his say-so as truth, his edicts as middle-man between your consciousness and your existence."

"No pinch hitter can live your life". A surrogate is a pinch hitter.

You are referring to sensations, not the use of senses to perceive and begin the thought process.

You are not defining "independent" correctly.
Parents are simply acting as surrogates in the beginning.
Read a little Rand.

You are stuck on your emotional view.

I agree provided that, if she chooses to bear it and keep it, she doesn't get to demand child support. Because he isn't responsible for her choice.

That one's been to court too.

That one's already been to court.

An amoeba reacts to stimuli.

There are plenty of possible situations (not involving abortion) where anyone could be presented with a choice of "your life or that other guy's." (For instance, arguing over a space in a lifeboat on the Titanic.) The moral status of each alternative may very well depend on other facts, such as whose fault it is that you are being presented with that choice. But in at least some of the possible scenarios, you can and will be in the position that there is no right choice, and the best you can do is try and make the least bad choice.

The fact that this may happen is unpleasant, but the possibility doesn't go away just because you chant "Rights cannot conflict." That's a head-in-the-sand approach.

Well, for myself only, I decided many years ago that I personally, would never have an abortion.

My reading is that AR would never have considered addressing these questions for any of the characters in her fiction, because it would not be "good art."

Breathing is certainly an important step in the right direction toward independence, and yet even this point has its moral/ethical issues to contemplate. My opinion on this point was changed when a cousin of mine was born at 26 weeks gestation thirty years ago. Her mother was in serious danger if she let the pregnancy continue. The doctor recommended a C-section. My cousin was getting breathing assistance outside the womb for over a month because her lungs were insufficiently developed. She was kept in the hospital for two months after breathing independence because of other fetal development that was incomplete. Would it have been OK to terminate my cousin outside the womb? Legally, it would have been illegal to kill my cousin at that point, even if morally, it would have been reasonable. You have never seen so many hospital staff rooting for anyone's survival as my cousin. Had it not been covered by insurance, there is no way that her parents could have paid for that. My cousin lives life as a productive adult with some minimal complications that the doctor said might happen in her 20's and 30's as a consequence of being a preemie.

Likewise, just before my mom perished in June, she had to go onto a heart/lung machine to sustain her breathing. In my mom's case, she had specified what she wanted in a living will. But suppose she hadn't and I had power of attorney (which I did), would it have been OK for me to say no to this? If breathing is the primary criterion, then the answer is yes, and yet I know many people who have been on heart/lung machines during surgery that have lived for 20 years after that. The dilemmas to consider in these life and death decisions are not so clear cut, but the effects of a "no" decision are binary (life or death). It is precisely this ambiguity (I know this is anathema to an Objectivist.) that makes me error on the side of caution.

"The philosophy of Objectivism basically states that an unborn child has no rights."

I think thats what I'm trying to understand. I don't particularly subscribe to ANYTHING just because someone/something say its so. Considering all we know about the development of life today would Rand alter her philosophy in this regard.

I would assume, because this is not religious dogma, that all the facts would be considered prior to her making her pronouncement to her followers. The advances in science and health would factor into her assessment and weigh on her edict, no?

Lastly, No matter how/when you define life, the actions of the "couple" are irresponsible.