Calling people a "jackass party" who must "unconsciously" hold, with "feelings", a view they do not subscribe to is not an argument. Calling abortion a "sacrament" has nothing to do with the Kavanaugh hearings. The circus created here by anti-abortionists is worse than the mentality of the Kavanaugh hearings.

That anyone has the potential to make an error is not evidence that someone has on a particular issue. Ayn Rand gave careful reasons for her philosophy, including for the rights of the individual and the right of abortion in particular. So have numerous patient, serious posts on this forum. You have seriously addressed none of it, let alone refuted it. It cannot be dismissed by a sweeping "personal opinion" that people can make mistakes. That is not a defense of your religious assumptions conflicting with the right of a woman to not be forced to bear a child she does not want. That people have the capacity to err does not mean that they have when contradicting your faith.

The fact that conceptual knowledge is not infallible is why we need a method for thinking, not subjectivism and faith. The method is logic with a rational, objective epistemology.

There is no such thing as a fetus after birth. That is always the case.

You argued that in defending the right of abortion I am allowing others to "use your correct philosophy against you" because you don't want to pay for subsidized abortions. That argument makes no sense and neither does the appeal to "eugenics".

You know very well that Ayn Rand defended the rights of the individual woman to not be forced to bear a child she doesn't want, sacrificing her life and rights an unborn potential. That right is not to be denied because of other laws providing subsidies, and I have not been co-opted by anything. The right has nothing to do with "sacraments" (or now thrown in, eugenics) and even the left doesn't believe that. The crackpot book is irrelevant, not a basis for rational argument.

You have previously told the story of your daughter several times. You took a chance and fortunately won. It has nothing to do with the right of abortion and continuing to interject it, despite its personal importance to you, is irrelevant to discussion of the right of abortion.

The size of imagined "elephants" versus "mammoths" does not make the governor of Virginia say what you want others to imagine he said. He did not say it. Snide, goofy deflections over "mammoths" are an evasion and do not change that fact.

You continue to miss the point. "Here now pain hurts" is not an argument against abortion (or any other medical procedure). Neither is "here now heart beats". Neither are unique to persons and neither appear to be honest motives -- as Irshultis observes, anti-abortionists don't care about other pain during birth.

The religious attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy, in particular her support of the right of a woman to control her own body, are not questioning their own philosophy.

In contrast, explaining and defending the principles of the rights of the individual that are under attack are not "religion" and not "behaving irrationally". The anti-intellectual attacks on Ayn Rand's position and the ignoring and avoidance of serious discussion here are not providing anything useful.

Everything posted here can be read by anyone. That the poster doesn't want to bother reading responses doesn't matter. He cannot tell anyone to not bother responding and has no right to dismiss in advance those who do respond, whoever he thinks they are, as "irrational" and "upset".

The lack of integrity and respect for the purpose of this forum may indeed mean that it is circling the drain.

Human biology isn't "set up". Normal reproduction as it is is a product of evolution. So is our rational capacity to think and act in choices for our lives. Whatever anyone would prefer that we be biologically that is different than what is, it is not relevant to our rights, which are based on the nature of human beings as we are.

Exceller has denounced Ayn Rand's position affirming the right of abortion as "unhinged", "sickest" and "deranged", smearing it as tied to celebrating abortions with a "shower".

Rejecting the smear has been 'downvoted' by militant conservatives piling on to the smear, and the rejection, not the smear, has been 'hidden' from view. Is this what this forum is supposed to be? Is that what the advertised "Galt's Gulch is a community of like-minded individuals who come together regularly to share interesting content and ideas with each other and debate politics, economics, philosophy and more" means? Is this the stated purpose of the forum: " We have ideas to spread - We're passionate about Ayn Rand's ideas and we hope to assist in their propagation by engaging in some inspired conversation"? Who and what are this forum being maintained for?

This is the post that is 'hidden':

"A woman's choice to have an abortion at any stage is not 'unhinged'. The vast majority of late term abortions are for reasons of health and threats to the life of the woman. 'Unhinged' is the barbaric practice forcing women to bear children they do not want."

You don't tell me what I would hypothetically do, nor is it relevant to the principle of individual rights. The right is the woman's to exercise, if she chooses to, for whatever reason she chooses before birth. It is no one else's business. In practice no one deliberately waits as long as possible to make the process harder. The choice remains a right before birth, available if necessary.

You can "take" no such thing. It is not relevant to the principle of individual rights and no one deliberately waits as long as possible to make the process harder. The choice remains a right before birth, available if necessary.

I agree that the government should have no interference in abortion

As I said, if you were a woman, you would terminate the pregnancy for any reason just up to the point it pops out and is 'born"

I take it that if you were a woman, you would unilaterally choose if you wanted to end the pregnancy anytime until the "thing" pops out of the womb and enters the world.

Here we deal with reality, not "too bad" it isn't something else. But as to the principle of the rights, of course the government should not engage in violation of rights. But politics depends on morality and false morality leads to bad politics. Anti-abortionists argue from false morality and insist on imposing it in their politics. That is how it wound up in government. The Catholic church was historically the main lobbyist for it. Now the religious right evangelicals are in on it.

Abortion is before birth. There is no baby to "kill" before birth. A child begins to have rights at birth. That is not complicated.

Of course it's better to not get pregnant if a child is not wanted. That is not a solution to moral questions about abortion. Abortion arises as a choice when there is a pregnancy regardless of any precautions that may have been taken, or when a child may have been wanted but there is an unusual health problem. Anti-abortionists who try to rationalize their demands by going off on contraception are evading.

Ok, not good with foreign languages.

Those kind of decisions on medical care that doctors, patients, and families wrestle with every day are complicated, and made more complicated by the uncertainty of the potential outcomes.

It has nothing to do with the right of abortion, which concerns only the rights of the woman, before giving birth, and is not made complicated by those extraneous factors.

Exercising that right may be complicated for a woman to decide what to choose either with regard to wanting to have a child or unpredictable outcomes of threats to health of herself or the potential child, but that does not make the principle of the right to choose complicated.

I would leave the government out if it completely. I would think it’s up to the mother. What a decision to make though !

Too bad the default state for a woman isn’t “infertile”, and she would need to specifically choose to be “fertile” in order to get pregnant

That’s the tricky part. EXACTLY when does the ability to “abort” end and killing begin. It’s complicated

I am not weighing in on abortion. That said , it’s a better solution to just not get pregnant in the first place unless you are sure you want the responsibility of raising a child that’s what I meant

It is complicated and I am glad I don’t need to make a decision on this situation.

The "accusations" are from your own posts, not "assumptions". That you haven't seen his posts here before is irrelevant and this has nothing to do with parties. What is "interesting" supposed to mean?

Whatever "I gave to the answer" means, you did not answer the question. Mind reading does make it "hard to comprehend" and is not "self explanatory". You spent time in multiple threads clearly avoiding answering after arbitrarily asserting "abortion is NOT a right", but won't give a simple yes or no on what you want to do about it. "Waste of time" does not seem to be the problem. There are several questions you have not answered about what you mean https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...