I think that, in general, said moral deficit comes when people conceive children without forethought, or do not use appropriate contraception.

In my opinion, a great moral deficit occurs in bringing an unwanted child into the world. Unless that child is adopted into an appropriate family, s/he is quite likely to be abused and/or neglected, and oftentimes acts this experience out in substance abuse, crime, illegitimate parenthood themselves, welfare dependency, etc.

Nevertheless, I think that the line should generally be drawn, with limited exceptions, when the fetus becomes viable. And I mean truly viable, which I understand is at about 24 weeks.
Saving a less mature fetus may be heroic, but most will suffer one or more deficits and/or handicaps, which generally are funded by the taxpayer.

Again, we go back to individual responsibility. Either plan responsibly for parenthood and have the means to provide a minimum standard of living for your children, or don't become a parent.

Please note that I do not advocate government enforcement of these ideas.

Yes and they know very well after repeated discussion here that they are repetitively, militantly and deliberately attacking Ayn Rand's moral philosophy here on behalf of religion -- more recently without using the 'g-o-d' letters to try slip it in, the way religionists pretend Creationism is science to smuggle it into schools. Ayn Rand's moral philosophy explains the nature and source of rights comprehensively, and it does not apply to the unborn -- whether early cells or a fetus.

As Ayn Rand put it in "On Living Death"

"And this policy is advocated by the encyclical's supporters in the name of their concern for 'the sanctity of life' and for 'rights'- the rights of the embryo.(!)"

"I suppose that only the psychological mechanism of projection can make it possible for such advocates to accuse their opponents of being 'anti-life'."

"Observe that the men who uphold such a concept as "the rights of an embryo," are the men who deny, negate and violate the rights of a living human being."

"An embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)."

"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? The Catholic church is responsible for this country's disgracefully barbarian anti-abortion laws, which should be repealed and abolished."

Leonard Peikoff also explained the principle in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

"Just as there are no rights of collections of individuals, so there are no rights of parts of individuals—no rights of arms or of tumors or of any piece of tissue growing within a woman, even if it has the capacity to become in time a human being. A potentiality is not an actuality, and a fertilized ovum, an embryo, or a fetus is not a human being. Rights belong only to man—and men are entities, organisms that are biologically formed and physically separate from one another. That which lives within the body of another can claim no prerogatives against its host."

"Responsible parenthood involves decades devoted to the child's proper nurture. To sentence a woman to bear a child against her will is an unspeakable violation of her rights: her right to liberty (to the functions of her body), her right to the pursuit of happiness, and, sometimes, her right to life itself, even as a serf. Such a sentence represents the sacrifice of the actual to the potential, of a real human being to a piece of protoplasm, which has no life in the human sense of the term. It is sheer perversion of language for people who demand this sacrifice to call themselves 'right-to-lifers'."

This likewise applies to those trying to force women to spend months of pregnancy to bear a child for someone else's adoption, all based on the mystical concept of an intrinsic "right" as an entitlement to be born by an entity (or pre-entity in the early stages) to which the concept of 'rights' does not apply.

Concerning a proposed legislative reform of abortion restrictions, Ayn Rand wrote in 1969:

"There are few political actions today that we can support without supporting a number of dangerous contradictions at the same time. The abortion-law reform is one such action; it is clear-cut, unequivocal and crucially important. It is not a partisan issue in the narrow sense of practical politics. It is a fundamental moral issue of enlightened respect for individual rights versus savagely primitive superstition." -- "A Suggestion", The Objectivist, Feb. 1969,

I think what you meant to say is that a woman retains the right over her own body until she allows the manifestation of another life, ie pregnancy. I agree. The choice to be made is whether or not to have (unprotected) sex. Pregnancy is a result of that action and no other. If one does not wish to risk pregnancy, one should either refrain or take precaution.

Deny that according to the videos published, PP stands in violation of at least four specific Federal regulations regarding the disposal of fetal tissue and the procedures surrounding abortion. That is the issue and the justification for their defunding - not some mythical religious crusade of your imagination.

The question was a trap question and Carson answered it with his own trap question. I thought it a particularly adroit response, which is why I highlighted it.

Then define scientifically when a person has the right to life. The problem is one even Rand struggled with.

You get overtly hysterical whenever this subject is brought up and impugn religion in your attempt to beat anyone who opposes your viewpoint over the head with it. If you can't engage in a reasonable debate about the matter without falling to this zealotry, it is YOU who should leave this forum for failing to remain objective - and even more importantly civil.

You are attempting to hijack this thread for your own ideological viewpoint when nothing about it was brought up until you threw your temper tantrum. People disagree with you and they have a very good reason to disagree. Deal with it or invite yourself to leave.

Ben Carson. Watch his face. He might as well be twiddling his thumbs behind his back with eyes rolled to the ceiling. Even without that his answer was obviously evasive given that we know he (properly) opposes Obamacare.

The real question is not about government welfare. Nothing has been done to reduce the subsidies now going to Planned Parenthood, only to divert them somewhere else. The entire political attack on Planned Parenthood has been a hysteical smear campaign based on an anti-abortion rights ideology.

There is no "natural law holding final reckoning" against those who have or practice abortions. There is no "natural" law of "consequences" under which a woman is bound to have a child she does not want. That is a religious injunction claiming an intrinsic entitlement for a potential to be born. The "consequences" of abortion for religious conservatives are only government imposed theocratic criminal punishment. That is the "reckoning" you want.

Trying to hide your religious proselytizing by cloaking it behind a rhetoric of "natural law" to pretend not violating the terms and purpose of this forum is not working. It is as dishonest as the religious pretense that Creationism is a science in order to smuggle it into schools.

Your attempt to hide your religious anti-abortion agenda cloaked behind a description of "temperament and intelligence" failed. The interview was about the anti-science, anti-abortion consequences of Carson's religious premises.

I never assumed you were. Since we do not live in a theocracy your fear has no foundation. Expression of ideas, of any kind, is all you see everyday, good or bad. Sanctity of life is not a unique item in Christianity and certainly not exclusive to people of faith.

You are once again in violation of the terms of using this forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason in your militant promoting of your religion and anti-abortion agenda. Rejecting faith is the rational position, it is not "angst". Your attacks on Ayn Rand's basic principles are repugnant and do not belong here.

Banning abortion is a "club", whether used "silently" or not. Abortion is a right: a right is a moral sanction of freedom of action in accordance with once's choice.

There is no "sanctity" of life other than human life and rights. Denouncing use of stem cells for research because of religious sanctity of an intrinsic value of fetal tissue and cells is anti-science whether or not it is rationalized with claims that it isn't 'needed' to get us to believe it doesn't matter. His religious basis does matter. His fundamental criterion is not science, but a religious sanctity. "Speaking softly" while holding his head "level" does not make an argument intelligent.

Actions have consequences. Natural law itself holds the final reckoning.

The real question here, however, is why the government is sponsoring a corporate welfare project - especially one which is arguably violating at least four Federal laws.

I think I get what you are saying, but I'm not sure in your answer which "he" is Tapper and which "he" is Carson. It would be helpful to be specific.

Uh, actually according to Federal Statutes there is substantial evidence to conclude that they have broken the law in at least four ways and should be investigated for such wrongdoing.

Further, the American people should absolutely be able to say where their money goes and what services and companies it goes to. If they choose not to pay $1/2 billion to them, that is their prerogative.

It's true, solutions to reduce "big government" and restore "lost liberty" should have a higher priority. We will not have the luxury of arguing many issues, if those solutions are not found.

Abortion is not a right, its a choice. He clearly stated that there are other means of obtaining tissue that do not violate the sanctity of life. You just have extreme animosity toward anyone with any degree of faith. Carson openly admits his faith but has never used it as a club. He speaks softly, with a level head, and makes intelligent arguments. Where is your issue ASIDE from you automated angst toward faith?

You can't shut down an argument with an equivocation. He is confusing human life with any kind of life. There is no "sanctity of life" apart from human life and rights.

When you appeal to the sanctity of anything you have to be able to defend why against those who reject it.

He often "sounds good" with his calmer personality, especially compared with the wild-eyed shouting of most politicians. But he has the same mannerisms even when spouting religious nonsense. Appealing to this interview in particular in the name of "this level headed, intelligent man for [the] next President" makes no sense.

Planned Parenthood has done no wrong. The people who raised this non-issue in the first place are enemies of freedom trying to make us waste our energy. If we don't have the brains to refrain, we might as well not be here.

Err, how and why did you factor religion into this thread?

Wrong. Until such time SHE allows another life to manifest within herself. Personal Accountability.

Defiance of religious mandates is not being unaccountable for our actions. We are not accountable to you.

He said it with a smirk, knowing that he (properly) opposes Obamacare and that he didn't answer the question.

His answers to these questions tells us to vote against him. He opposes the right of abortion, claims that it destroys the sanctity of human life, and opposes research with fetal tissue and embryonic stem cells. That all shows a fundamental disregard for human rights, sacrificed to a potential.

It's not a waste of time to those who want to subjugate us to religion. That makes it worse than a waste of time ignoring freedom, it is an attack on freedom.

a woman's body is the property of that woman...period.