That entire post is mystical. The cartoon only "hits one hard" for those with a fictional cartoon biology and philosophy. The cartoon illustrates the fallacies perfectly.

No, it's part of the price I'd be charging for services rendered. Remember, in the hypothetical situation I outlined, I'm running the clinic. If a woman doesn't want to listen to the propaganda, she can find another place to get her abortion, or do without it.

"Viability" is not an excuse to interfere with a woman's right to her own body. Demanding that every cluster of cells at "conception" be artificially supported regardless of the choice of the woman is irrational, not "unfortunate" for those defending the rights of the individual.

All living cells are "alive". So what? Who says that fetuses are "dead"? "Human" genes do not make cells and fetuses a "human being" as a person.

You know very well that this is not a debate about whether or not there should be human birth and that the 'choice' means whether or not any particular person wants to have child at some particular time or at all.

There is no such thing as a "non-traditional Objectivist idea" contradicting Objectivism. Ayn Rand gave her reasons for rejecting the anti-abortionists violations of the rights of the individual. That is the Objectivist position on the topic. If you want to discuss Objectivism you can do that, but please don't try to appeal to religious 'fetus rights' pronouncements in the name of "non-traditional Objectivist ideas". This is not a place to promote religion, let alone replace it in its own name.

It isn't necessarily a terrible choice. The notion that it is is what people are manipulating into believing by inculcating false guilt.

There is no such consent to be withdrawn.

An intrusive requirement for a 15 minute session of propaganda is force.

There is no responsibility to have a child following sex. The notion that the choice to have sex implies granting an entitlement for a potential to be born is preposterous. Freedom does not mean "subject to religious duties" claimed to be a "responsibility".

Recognizing the possibility of unwanted pregnancy does not dictate what must not be done about it if it occurs. Responsibility in this context means the responsibility to acknowledge what is happening, recognizing what must be done to terminate it, and choosing what to do about it in accordance with rational self-interest, not religious sacrifice banning "selfish concerns".

Women should not be manipulated into "admitting" fictions about cells and fetuses being "baby persons" as a means to morally intimidate them into abandoning their own "selfish concerns".

So, at no point in its development is a fetus a person with rights?

Is a newborn baby a person with rights? If so, why didn't it have rights ten minutes before birth; what changed? If not, when does it acquire rights, and why?

Certainly not inside the imagined internal playpen.

"it" is life, at conception. . the woman has the choice
to sustain it -- or not -- until birth. . facts. -- j
.

The cartoon is the same fiction as the cartoon philosophy and cartoon biology imagining a "person" with "rights", completely disregarding the meaning of those concepts and the facts that give rise to them. Cells and fetuses have the potential to evolve into human beings. There is no "person" sitting in there in something like a big playpen while philosophizing about a potential future life and "choice". It is all cartoon fiction.

By conceding such fictional premises you only lend undeserved credence to irrational demands to interfere with the woman exercising the right to her own body -- the false premise is already being cashed in on right here on this same page https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post.... The law cannot "reasonably require" a woman to do anything with her own body regardless of what else might be "viable".

The prospect of religionists paying taxes to support abortion, which is not legal, is no worse than anyone being forced to pay taxes to support anything he opposes, which is currently happening all the time -- including the mountains of propaganda for the viros and all kinds of statist re-destributionism and government control over schools.

Frenzied mysticism by religionists goes not give them any special rights or consideration above the rest of us, whether in their opposition to the right of abortion or special exemption from use of their taxes the rest of us don't get.

once faced with the choice of ending their child's life due to their own selfish concerns, I think many more would change their minds.

I agree with this. If I were running an abortion clinic, I'd go to Operation Rescue (or whoever was the primary anti-abortion force locally) and make them this offer:

"I will give you a private office in my clinic. Every woman who comes for an abortion will be required to spend 15 minutes in that office talking with you. You may use any means short of force or threat of force to try to convince her to carry her pregnancy to term.

"In return for this, you must agree that no anti-abortion protesters will physically attack or interfere with our staff, patients or facilities. Use your influence with other protest groups as needed to do this."

During my wife's 2nd pregnancy, she tried to take something heavy off a shelf. Foolish. She started spotting. The doctors of the times recommended abortion. The kid, if it lives may be handicapped. She decided to stick it out and we'd cope with the consequences. As it happened, there were no consequences. We were fortunate. But it was strictly her choice with whatever support I could give no matter what she chose. She was in her 1st trimester.

Or we could start calling it what it really is...
Pro-Choice versus Pro-Birth, too.

Yeah, you're really going to get agreement or even consensus on this one...
Good luck!

I'm talking about consent, not responsibility. Your argument presumes that the act of procreation creates an obligation to the unborn child which supersedes the mother's ownership of her body. I reject that presumption.

A rational opinion.
When it comes to abortion, there is very little of that.

Clarification "No one can choose to take their responsibility back unless...."

No one can not choose to take their responsibility unless they have some way of reversing their original action that created the responsibility. So unless you have a time machine there is simply no way someone can do away with the responsibility they already created.

In regards to the birth control argument, the mother absolutely did consent to take the risk. She knows it can fail in very unusual cases and she judged the risks small enough to take the chance. Unfortunately she ended up losing that gamble but it does not change the fact she accepted the responsibility when she accepted the gamble.

In regards to the lock on the front door, the homeowner never agreed to even the possibility of being robbed. The lock was simply an extra measure of protection against evil doers that are outside of all arguments regarding choice, freedom, and responsibility. To change the lock proposition into consent the situation would need to include some form of agreement like...I agree to give you $1,000,000 but in return you agree to give me the $1,000,000 back along with all your other possessions if I am able to pick the lock. Women essentially do this when they agree to sex. They accept the possibility of one in exchange for the other. But the man does the same thing...in return for sex they are accepting the gamble that they may have to financially support a child. Whether you are a man or woman, you can only argue your rights over that of the child if your own actions did not create the responsibility of the child in the first place.

If the pregnancy resulted from failed birth control, did the mother consent to it? Any steps you take to prevent an undesired outcome can fail; if the lock on your front door gets picked by a burglar, did you consent to the possibility of being robbed?

2. Even if the mother actively consented to--even desired--the pregnancy when it happened, doesn't she have the right to withdraw that consent?

I generally agree with your comments and I just wanted to give you a word of support. I know that pro life comments are not met well on this forum. I think the ideas expressed on this forum are generally very positive and strong, but nothing is perfect and I wish it were more open to non-traditional objectivist ideas. No philosophy or person is beyond argument. Thanks

I think your take is the most logical of the pro-choice arguments I have heard and I think the practice of that argument would go a long way towards the preservation of life. Mothers would be much more likely to admit the baby is a person if they know they will still have the right to end the life. However, once faced with the choice of ending their child's life due to their own selfish concerns, I think many more would change their minds.

However, in the end I can not support this take on things except in situations where the mother was given no choice as to have the initial sex. Freedom never comes without responsibility. They are always two sides of the same coin. If you want the freedom to have sex, you can not separate that from the responsibility that comes with the consequences. The mother did have a right not to have another person live in her body, but she decided to accept the possibility of that happening when she agreed to have sex.

I think your take is the most logical of the pro-choice arguments I have heard and I think the practice of that argument would go a long way towards the preservation of life. Mothers would be much more likely to admit the baby is a person if they know they will still have the right to end the life. However, once faced with the choice of ending their child's life due to their own selfish concerns, I think many more would change their minds.

However, in the end I can not support this take on things except in situations where the mother was given no choice as to have the initial sex. Freedom never comes without responsibility. They are always two sides of the same coin. If you want the freedom to have sex, you can not separate that from the responsibility that comes with the consequences. The mother did have a right not to have another person live in her body, but she decided to accept the possibility of that happening when she agreed to have sex.