Hear hear

I will disappoint AJA by not voting the above down.
In fact the ideas are not bad, tho' 'anything beyond human consciousness' is a good candidate for ridicule, compare talking about the thoughts of a dead body, whether eminent or not during life.

I agree about being cautious about the worth of simply quoting. Without a comment on relevance to some issue it is often just adulation or worship. Since I am again going against AJA in 'refrain from comparing' I give an up point - for the pleasure, for the inspiration to comment as well as for the good parts of the post.

You're right. And they do it every time.

Ha! I thought I was the only one on here optimistic enough to think we still have a chance of taking the country back.

This is a unique experience in my life - being in the position of supporting a non-pro choice argument! I'm making no personal smears as I'm not stating what your position is, you are. But if your boundary of abortion not being murder is simply "pre-birth" then yes I submit that that boundary does include murder, and is actually already illegal in most if not all states if performed up to “pre-birth". Drawing the line of what is or isn't murder geographically and not biologically is illogical. The issue of abortion I think can logically be distilled to life versus not life. Some believe life begins at birth I think because they honor the "illogical" religious spiritual component of the "miracle" of fertilization. I respect their right to have that belief even though I do not share it and would protest against that standard being imposed upon me because it is derived from a religious belief that I do not share, and not from any objective logical medical standard or criteria. But it cannot be disputed that viable is viable, irrespective of biological geography and in fact that is mostly what the current law follows, with some exceptions for the life of the mother, but not always then. The women who went to Gosnell and the procedures for which he was prosecuted were seeking what he called "abortions". His conviction was due to his killing the baby once it was outside the woman's body but was no different than the late term abortions in which the fully formed baby of greater than 24 weeks’ gestation is killed inside the woman's body - and then delivered either whole or in pieces. After 24 weeks this is illegal in most if not all states. It is illogical to say that conducing an abortion up until birth (which can occur far later than preemies are able to survive) just because it isn't outside the womb isn't murder. Again, religious beliefs, which seem to be offensive to some in this forum, are not the foundation of my position as I do not observe any religious practices or customs nor have I at any time in my life. My position is based on a basic sense of humanity which is independent of the "illogical" faith of any religion. To take this discussion back to area in which it began, a presidential candidate openly owning his or her basic sense of humanity is not offensive to me, even if it does happen to be based on religion, as in the case of Carson. As long as I'm not imposed upon by another's religious ( or social, economic, lifestyle or other) beliefs I do not feel threatened or object to them holding their beliefs. And I think Carson made clear that he put the Constitution and Bill of Rights (ie. rule of law) over religion when he said he would not support a Muslim as president unless that person made clear that they would honor and obey American rule of law over Muslim's sharia law. I'm generally a pro-choice, live and let live person with everything - that people should do what seems right for them as long as it doesn’t negatively impact me living my life as I choose to. But I also believe it is reasonable and just that society has to be willing to sometimes make some distinctions, such as those that already exist in abortion laws today, far before the line of "pre-birth".

The danger of Christian faith and "coming to God" to a free society have been explained many times. Religion is most certainly not "antithetical to tyranny" as has been illustrated over and over throughout history, with the reasons why very well understood. The problem with Carson regarding his sincerity is that he is so sincere about a fanatical religious belief.

But the evangelical "base" does not dominate past the primary. They are corrupting what little chance we have of taking the country back by dogmatically inserting irrelevant and destructive distractions with religious evangelizing and imposition.

Take your mysticism somewhere else. Your dogmatic religious pronouncements do not contribute to the discussion.

It' not just distortion. It's evasive and dogmatic, with no grasp of causality and explanation in the flow of ideas and historical reasoning.

It's not typical Christian so much as it's typical of a certain kind of dogmatic pseudo intellectual religious conservative.

You are "baffled" by the fact that people stand up to your dogmatic religious conservatism and reject your pronouncements. All of what you claim is assertion without facts has been discussed previously and you continue to ignore it. You are evasive and dogmatic. If you can't discuss these ideas here then take your pronouncements somewhere else. There are many places you can go.

Conservative ideology insisting on religious dogma and revisionist history is not fact. Your faith and belief in the supernatural are not the basis for determining fact.

You are constantly promoting religion and religious conservative dogma. The meaning of "endowed by their creator" in the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with Christianity and the Christian altruist duty ethics you dogmatically promote, as has been explained many times and which you continue to ignore. Ayn Rand explained in detail why she rejected both religion and conservatism. If you are not interested in Ayn Rand's ideas, and history and philosophy beyond Christian dogma and religious conservativism, then please take it somewhere else. Your religious premise are not the basis of discussion and standard of evaluation. You can believe whatever you want to for any reason or non-reason you wish, but it does not belong on this forum.

Its not that we're not welcome, its just not something this site seeks to promote. I've been down this very road more times than I can remember. Mentioning anything beyond human consciousness is torn down and ridiculed by some (I write sci-fi LOL). Whatever you do, refrain from comparing members ability to quote the book, chapter, paragraph and verse of Rand with a Bible thumper's ability to quote scripture - its not at all the same (and neither is the reverence). The folks here, for the most part, are good folks, they just have their hot buttons and their mental roadblocks like everyone else.

(I willingly post this knowing that I will probably achieve a new record of negative votes - C'est la vie)

Your hostility and attacks on Ayn Rand's ideas do not belong on this forum. You are not discussing or trying to understand them. You are misrepresenting and attacking in your hostility and ignorance of Ayn Rand, philosophy and history.

The meaning of the phrasing in the Declaration of Independence has already been discussed here and elsewhere on this forum several times and you ignore it. Instead of discussing what is written you make repetitive dogmatic pronouncements and derisive dismissals as you you promote your religious dogma.

No one has relegated "Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein to the JV science squad". That is your own snide invention. Take your abusive posts somewhere else.

This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not your religion, your snide personal hostility and feuding, and your subjective misrepresentations. Take it somewhere else.

This is a forum for Ayn Rand's ideas, not promoting religion. Your statement is arrogant and inappropriate because it insinuates that Ayn Rand's ideas became something else after she died, somehow within herself, which is nonsensical. It is not "arrogance" to reject mysticism and anti Ayn Rand ideology as a supposed basis for You can believe whatever you want to but religious promotion does not belong here.

So I take it that anyone who believes there is an intelligent design of our planet, life on earth and our universe is not welcome on the site? We are considered as believing in "mysticism" and are incapable of thinking as an Objectivist? I have heard this suggested many times in this post and a few other. I do not know who the founder of Galtsgulchonline.com is, but if you prefer that those of us who believe in God go somewhere else that is fine.

Objectivism is fundamentally opposed to Pragmatism. Who do you think is equating them?

The fact that we are not omniscient and so do not know everything about the universe is not a justification for faith in the supernatural. There are no facts that justify leaping to supernatural beliefs. That you do not understand everything means that you don't understand it, not that making up religious dogma explains the rest. "God did it" is not explanation. When you don't understand something it's time to top talking about it as if you do.

Insisting on reason is not an "elitist mentality". Your personal hostility does not belong here. If you can't accept that Ayn Rand rejected all forms of the supernatural and the accompanying religion then there are many other places you can go to promote your religion.

It' not only wrong, it shows their emphasis on fear in place of reason, in a long line of fire and brimstone threats.

Mill ended his life as a socialist.

Caron has been promoting his religion in his campaign for many months. It makes no difference that you didn't hear it in the most recent debate. I did not write a "screed". Your post is nonresponsive.

The "boundary" of abortion is pre-birth. Your false insinuation that I support murdering babies is an irrational personal smear and is morally despicable.