I have given explanations for the right of abortion and references to Ayn Rand's positions. I have also categorically rejected the stream of vitriolic and personal attacks coming from a few militant anti-abortionists in particular. Anyone has a right to reject that, it is contrary to the terms of posting on this forum, and no one should pander to it. You in particular made several false statements misrepresenting what I wrote and I named them. My insisting on rational and accurate discussion in the face of the personal attacks and misrepresentations here, which are certainly not "discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas", is not "militant", not "policing", and not "bullying". You are responsible for what you write.

Emotional thinking from traditional conservative premises contradicting Ayn Rand's reasoning is not an "interpretation" of Ayn Rand. Attacking her conclusions for not coinciding with traditional conservative religious views is not examination of her ideas. It is not examination or discussion of Ayn Rand's reasoning at all. Ayn Rand cannot be understood in religious terms. She was not a conservative. If you think explanations and quotes from Ayn Rand, indicating what you should read if you want to learn more, are "shoving information down your throat" then you are in the wrong place.

You can do whatever you want to do to come to conclusions on your time. Telling you what Ayn Rand wrote and rejecting your personal misrepresentations is not an improper "methodology". If you find that to be "tiresome and offensive" it is your offensive problem. You picked a fight I want nothing to do with.

The videos run for countless hours. The excerpts and their interpretations falsely claimed to be representative are much shorter.

Hysterical political campaigns are no challenge at all to principles we know to be true. Images of fetuses claimed to be "babies" are not a refutation of the woman's right to her own body and are no "challenge" to anything -- except for those who think emotionally in pictures. "A word is worth a thousand pictures" for those who think conceptually. Whether or not any individual at Planned Parenthood is ever found to be guilty of some legal infraction has absolutely nothing to do with the hysterical attempts to link abortion rights to "murder" and "eugenics".

I really do not agree with your logic. I'm sure there are a great number of liberal rocket scientists (smart people who are clueless about capitalism, freedom and rights). Ben Carson supports some forms of gun control. He says little about the economy, he says nothing about smothering regulations. Does he know how to surround himself with top notch thinkers and doers with expertise in areas he lacks? what does he know about foreign policy? He gave one prayer breakfast speech where he took on the President and became famous politically overnight. Being a brain surgeon does not qualify you to run the greatest nation in the world, but it does not disqualify you either.

No kidding! Being president isn't brain surgery, but I think it can't hurt to have a brain surgeon for president. If we could only find a rocket scientist as his running mate. Go, Ben, go! #BC2DC16

Ewv,

So based on this argument and others you have made this would be legal.

Baby reaches term, woman is ready to deliver and the baby is about to be born. The doctor sticks a blade in and kills the baby because the woman chooses this.

Are you really OK with that?

once again, an argument that there is some "right to abortion" is out of line with most of the rest of what Rand promotes.

By the very definition of a "Right" it instills the need to protect that right. If abortion is a right then a doctor must perform that abortion. If you do not agree lets provide the same argument to a property right.

If a person owns a piece of property and has a right to that property then law must enforce that right and protect his/her ability to use that property as they see fit. If this is not protected the right to property is lost.

Abortion cannot be a right and still have a free society. It is in direct conflict with the right of the mind to choose. Specifically the doctors right to choose not to provide the service, which is not a right. It is the wrong stance.

The correct position is to protect the right of agency, the right to choose by the dictates of ones own mind.

The only correct argument around abortion is when does the baby become a baby? I have made other posts the suggest why even this must be left to the individual, but this is the only argument around this subject that can be made at a collective level, the entire rest of the argument is based on individual choice.

Again, government should stay out of it. They should not be involved in paying for abortions (or for that matter funding any private group). Planned parenthood should not be funded by tax dollars as it enforces collective values against individuals in so doing.

Planned Parenthood should have to exist of the money it can make through charity drives, not a single tax dollar should go to them or any other group. It is an example of the scope of government extending way to far.

I think I need to clarify this a bit.

I agree with most of Rands philosophy but there are a few places where I think she deviated from the base values she herself provides, the abortion argument is an example of this.

In California you have people charged and convicted for a double homicide where the woman was two months pregnant but yet a woman can kill the baby without being charge with murder. This is the result of approaching the issue as "A woman's right" to abortion.

If abortion is a right then society would have to enforce the ability to exercise that right. One cannot have one of those without the other. That means that she is indeed arguing that a doctor must perform an abortion if the woman wants it done. If the doctor can opt out it is no longer a right, but choice.

The argument that should have been made, and should be made today is that it is a right of the mind to choose for oneself. This would mean that both the doctor and the woman involved have the right to make a choice based on the dictates of there own mind.

This then makes the only argument that can be debated around this: At what point does the baby have a right to the same protection of anyone else? or to make it more specific "At what point does life begin?" Once clearly defined Abortion is either a choice made by those involved based off their personal values or it becomes murder and all laws concerning murder come into play. Note that no law exists under this argument regarding abortion. There is no need to have such a law.

The only state I know of to legally define this is Delaware. They defined it as first breath. In any other state there is no definition of when life begins.

From a science perspective it would be well before first breath. The baby reacts to stimulation independently from the mother and can survive independently from the mother way before this point and this may be used to help define when the baby is a baby legally but is otherwise a mute point.

The only way this issue can ever be settled is to clearly define when a baby is alive and protected by law as any other person. If society thinks that's first breath like Delaware then abortion is not murder when they pull the baby out and instead of slapping its bottom to get the baby screaming they kill it. That baby has not taken a breath and is not protected by law in the state of Delaware.

No court is likely to fully uphold that law as defined. I realize this, it also illustrates just how absurd the argument is for first breath. The point that I made in this post is that its individual choice that needs protecting, that is a right. Abortion can never be clearly defined in a way that will not cause someone to react negatively to the definition. It must be left to the individual to choose. It is another case of government get the hell out of peoples lives.

The problem with arguing either for abortion or against it is this, it is a matter of belief. No matter how you slice it.

At whatever point the baby is a baby it has the same rights as any other person. How do you define the baby as a baby? At birth? That would be the only conclusion from Rand's argument. By that argument it has no rights till first breath. Or is it at conception, or somewhere in between? This is always, no mater what science proves going to be based on belief.

The only correct answer to this issue is for government to get out of it. They should not prevent nor encourage abortion or the performance of the medical procedure.

As a public issue it is moot. This is an individual issue that should never be anything other than an individual issue. The real argument is should government be involved in this issue at all?

Well said.

evw it is your manner and delivery method that is militant. It is not conducive to a conversation and frankly comes close to intellectual bullying. My assumption is that this site is supposed to be an open forum for discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas. It seems you have placed yourself in a position to police the discussions on this site and condone or condemn anyone who does not align with your interpretations of those ideas. Please don't shove this information down my throat. I will come to my own conclusions in my own time and your methodology of imparting information is both tiresome and offensive.

"countless hours" = effort. Why put forth effort when you already have your belief structure set and it can't be challenged, right? I've watched a few of those videos and none were more than a ten or fifteen minutes.

yes, you said all those things. I started this thread and the reason I posted it and the subject presented was Carson's cool-headedness, intelligence and character. Religion wasn't brought into this, nor was abortion rights, until YOU brought it the table. Only after you found opposition did YOU get on your high-horse and start ranting and being demeaning to others who did not share your view. You are solely responsible for the argumentative tone of this thread and, of course, now you try to spin.

Margaret Sanger has nothing to do with this. It doesn't make any difference what she said and did in the 1930s founding an organization and I never denied what she was. Your assertions about me are false. Margaret Sanger is irrelevant to the moral defense of abortion. Ayn Rand defended the right of abortion based on the nature and source of the rights of the individual to choose whether to have a child for personal reasons. That is the opposite of Margaret Sanger, China or any other collectivists demanding to "reduce a surplus population". There is no such thing as a "surplus population".

This has been explained to you previously and you continue to ignore it. To continue to connect eugenics with the moral right of abortion, and with Ayn Rand in particular, is false and dishonest. Your personal misrepresentations and militant "go ahead" 'blank out" insults are worse than inappropriate.

This has been explained to him before.

No one has said you should have to pay for other people's abortions and no one is telling you how to live your life. No one objected to starting a thread with Carson's interview. The religionists don't want Carson's views criticized.

This is an Ayn Rand forum for her philosophy of reason and egoism. Religionist "feelings" against abortion are not rational discussion and not a justification for a new version of politically correct dhimmitude. Explaining the moral right of abortion in defense of Ayn Rand's philosophy is integrity and consistency, not "militant" and not "religion". It belongs here. Attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy and those who advocate it do not. They are contrary to the purpose of the forum and the terms for posting here. Please have the common sense to understand that for yourself and drop the sarcastic accusations of "official censorship" towards those who reject the vitriolic stream of smears and misrepresentations against those of us who reject the religious anti-abortion campaign.

Neither is militant objectivism. Militant anything is quite off putting. A post was placed and opinions were invited. Clearly great offense was taken by you to either the post or the opinions or both. Whether or not I have any belief system at all is of no consequence in my freedom to express an opinion. It seems that objectivism has become a religion for you based on the defensiveness recorded on this site. I'm not sure but I can't recall being given your name as the official censor of this site. From a purely objective stance, since I must pay taxes or be penalized, I have the right to express my opinion on where I think that money should or should not go. Apparently, in your opinion, I fall in to the category of barbarism simply because I value life in all its forms potential or otherwise. I would never dream of telling another person how to live their life or what choices they should make. However, if I am asked, which is rarely, I would freely give my opinion. There are many who feel the method of abortion is barbaric in its violation and violence to the human body. If a woman chooses to subject her body to this procedure then she does have that freedom. However, I have the freedom and the right not to have to pay for it. A woman's poor judgement or misfortune is not my responsibility. Ben Carson is one of many candidates running for office. As a candidate it is perfectly legitimate for someone to post an interview of the person and for others to interface with them about it. You certainly have the freedom to express your opinion and I have the freedom to ignore it.

Jim, Planned Parenthood isn't the foundation of a woman's right to have, or not have, an abortion. That organization's founding is just a tangent to the central issue of the right to have an abortion. That right isn't an endorsement of any 'welfare' or demand it be paid for at the expense of others.

Equivocating the defense of the right to an abortion as a defense of PP is an assumption that only confuses these issues.

Ayn Rand did not say she could concede an argument to violate the right of abortion, she said the essence is in the nature of the first trimester. There is no excuse for confusion at that stage because it is so obvious that there is nothing there capable of rights. The mysticism and barbarism of sacrificing a woman to that is too obvious.

To "argue" about later stages of development or anything about any rights requires a basis of the nature and source of rights to know how to explain any additional factors. Those who are on a crusade to ban abortion don't have that and no such discussion is even possible, as can be seen by the kind of militant dogmatism they show here, usually accompanied by faith and mystic intrinsicism.

It is wishful thinking to believe that Ayn Rand condoned attributing rights to a potential or that "medical advances" could change that in any way other than preferred, sensible practices where warranted. "Abortion is a moral right—which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman involved; morally, nothing other than her wish in the matter is to be considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?"

Add the words "blank out" to this list.

Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, advocated abortion to "decrease the surplus population." Your continual failure to recognize her role in this debate is more than annoying. It is a blank out. Go ahead, and report me to those who run the site. I have already told them the same thing. It is a blank out on your part. No other Objectivist on this site who has defended the right to an abortion reasonably has denied what Margaret Sanger said ... except you. With all others who support the right to an abortion, I can respectfully disagree, but not so with you. You have dished it out with the best of them, yet continually condescended even to those who agree with you and taken at least ten times the offense that any other member of the Gulch community has.

Learn the history of China regarding advocacy of abortion to "decrease the surplus population", not to mention many people in the US and worldwide who wanted to reduce the population such as those who funded the Georgia Guidestones.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia...

Population control for the world has long been one of the left's ideological planks.

Government and lawyers will all kinds of things to you. It does not justify violating the right of abortion.

Misinterpreting the 10th amendment does not justify statism. But that is what many conservatives do. Ayn Rand was not a conservative. She supported the rights of the individual and government to protect them.

It is not why Ayn Rand wrote in the novel that John Galt was "shrugging" and she did not urge people to drop out. That was not the theme of Atlas Shrugged. This is not a business trying to "break even" with "customers" and there is no one end result to wait for. The results for you are every minute of your life in a process.

or truth blurred by the lack-of-accountability murder campaign.