So a person is accountable herself with no one else, not even the other partner who deposited genetic material, having a say. Lets take that one step further, if a woman's decision is solely her own then no doctor should physically be helping that person scrape out or lance and vacuum out that potential person from her body. Personal responsibility really does make a strong case for before, during or after contraceptive, no?

While I would have made that choice had I been faced with it, I do wish you could use the correct term, Down syndrome, rather than the pejorative you're using.

Those tools are often unavailable in the heat of the moment. Using government to decide and pay for abortion is far more immoral than the mother's and hopefully the father's free choice. Your abortion is none of my business, any more than some Rulers. I don't support abortion, but it becomes even more agonizing when the Rulers are allowed to make our choices.

I'm not sure she even thought about it. Certainly I don't remember anything in the books about her considering it, or whether she wanted children.

The vast majority of abortions are done before the fetus is viable. If that's the criterion, then shouldn't we make it easier to get early abortions? I expect many of the late term abortions we do have are either because it was too hard to get one early, or due to medical conditions.

Interesting, isn't it, that none of her female characters ever considered the issue, other than one very brief mention in We the Living. (And I'm of the opinion that Kira was pregnant at the end of the book, and that's why she made the choices she did, but that's for another discussion.)

It's not meant as a trick question, no one's implying that you are obligated to save one or the other. Simply that you have a choice of one or the other.

For your cell culture, are you implying that once it's implanted it's a life?

Yes to make one; but before it becomes human....

This comment has been hidden.

Please refer to the Gulch Code of Conduct ( http://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#f... )
[Please do not] Cast obscenities or be rude. This is the Gulch. You can do better.

Please refrain from any further gratuitous foul language.

I'd like to see your reaction when you make a mistake and someone else tries to dictate how you should act afterwards.
You and others here are ignoring the moral issue Rand makes. Don't mix in other irrelevant factors.

Clearly Galt was not referring to babies, but the definition of independence from Galt's speech is the correct one. As babies have substitutes (their parents) acting as their surrogates because while babies have some independent thought, they are incapable of acting upon that thought insufficiently to be independent. LIkewise, some old people are incapable of being independent. I was power of attorney for both of my parents until my mom recently died due to many physical problems. My father has Alzheimer's disease to the point where he is incapable of reason. Consequently, he is no longer independent as defined by Galt (and Rand), and he is having a substitute/surrogate (me) doing his thinking. Is my father alive? Yes, but he is not independent, and therefore, according to Rand's definition, what exactly are his rights? One either accepts Rand's definitions, or one doesn't. I don't accept her definition of life, precisely for these reasons. Assignment of rights should not be binary (all or nothing), and that is exactly what the self-generated actions definition leads to is a binary assignment of rights. Assignments of rights should be in proportion to one's responsibilities.

That would be accurate if people were perfect and the tools are perfect. Neither is true.

I think it's a pretty big jump to go from "pregnant" to "sexually irresponsible."

Have you ever made a mistake? And If so, were your later choices in life restricted because of them?
Morality does not bind one's actions because of mistakes! Ridiculous argument.

The Dr. gave an estimate of 1 out of 10 for mongoloidism. That sounds like a pretty high statistical estimate. I assume that you had the prenatal test.
Glad your child was normal. Both of my son's mothers had the test because of their age at the time. Both boys are exceptional.

that goop dividing cells in there isn't forming into a duck. That goop didn't get there miraculously, it was placed there deliberately via a process to propagate. It exists, sentient or not at that stage of development, to make another human life.

abortion is in the hands so to speak of the person choosing to have the abortion and therefore regardless what you happen to think even if you are an objectivist is still the decision of the person making that choice, in other words it is not your business.

Nonsense. He clearly is not referring to babies.
A right to life means a right to engage in self-generating action. That does not mean that a baby can't depend on its parents for assistance - as an old person might be dependent on another for support. But after birth, he has the ability to perceive and use his mind independently.

Both an amoeba and a fetus react to stimuli. That is one of seven biological characteristics of life. By itself, reaction to stimulus is insufficient. On that, we agree. However, from whence do brain waves come from in 3rd trimester fetuses, if not from thinking? Such thinking is admittedly insufficient for assignment of rights at that point. When I sang to my unborn children, they definitely stirred in my wife's womb to the point where my wife said it hurt a couple of times. Unquestionably they found the singing interesting and new, which means that they thought (albeit quite simply) in response to stimuli. This proves nothing in regard to rights, admittedly.

Escapism. Again, with all the options available to help avoid terminating a life how is it not irresponsible for a woman to use those birth control tools to avoid abortion.

How is acting responsibly (using any one of a myriad of contributive devices at any point) removing a woman's right to her own body? Isn't taking a pill as voluntary as laying with a man and allowing yourself to become impregnated?

The subject of "when" was never brought up by me. My initial question was how can abortion be rationalized by an Objectivist when our understanding of life has advanced so far beyond what Rand knew when she created your view. And, a persons accountability and responsibility for her/his own actions is definitely something Objectivists, Conservatives, and any human being should be examining and discussing, no?

Bingo.

Indeed!! and well said.

Tools make all the difference. These tools provide viable options to a situation which was beyond a person control. As state, there are tools for before, during and after sex. There is no rationalization for allowing any stage of life to begin with these tools available,

I am referring to rights being inalienable and only force can create a conflict among individual rights.
Moral principles are not based on emergency ethics. in your lifeboat example, each has a right to his life, thus the right to defend it. It is not a moral issue in determining who survives.