Further injustices are not a reason to ban abortion.

Ben Carson became politically nationally known simply for denouncing Obama's government health control at a prayer meeting. His personal accomplishments and general character are admirable but he does not understand philosophy and much of politics. If you go back and watch videos of interviews before the Obamacare speech, you see him taking very conventional, unprincipled political positions inconsistent with individualism. His subsequent surge in religious emphasis on top of that is frightening.

If each health care provider were free not to perform any specific procedure, you would not be arguing with me right now ... because there is government involvement. If bakers no longer have the right to not bake cakes for those with whom they philosphically disagree, then how soon will it be before a doctor gets sued for not performing an abortion?

Ayn Rand did not "arbitrarily assign rights, consciousness, and everything associated with development". There is no "magic" and rights do not depend on "consciousness". She did not "ignore" consciousness by "whim", "blatantly", "convenience" or any other way. Recognition of consciousness as the faculty of awareness of existence is not a "tautology". Rejecting religious mysticism and duties attacking abortion is not a "slippery slope", it's a complete rejection of faith as antithetical to reason. Your increasingly militant misrepresentations and attacks on Ayn Rand do not belong here.

Rejecting your religion is not "myopic angst". This is an Ayn Rand forum.

Individual accountability in this context means using birth control because an abortion is far more expensive and disruptive. Those who don't responsibly use it or when it doesn't work have to resort to abortion. There is no "accountability" to submit to barbaric religious duties.

No, she's isn't on the boat at all with this topic.

You prophetess would be so proud. You canonize Rand like anyone of faith would canonize their deity. Rand is WRONG.

If birth control does not work abortion is the only way left to prevent an unwanted birth. That is not "irresponsible". There is no individual accountability to religious dogma. Submission to religious duty is the opposite of Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and egoism.

Ass. Yes, a personal attack. No worries I reported myself.

10th Amendment.

yes, you did...review your posts...you use YOU several times.

Eww, Carons has far more authority on the any issue related to health than you or Rand. Again, you move the topic to your favorite rant. There are words I'd love to use toward you but I will refrain from doing so.

Its obvious management will not do anything, you stay here and I'll go. Regards.

She did not "miss the boat". She did not say and did not believe in forcing doctors to do anything. That is not what the right of abortion means. It means freedom from anyone preventing someone from having an abortion by a doctor willing to do it.

"Even when it could potentially survive".. Thats just an evil position. You've lost my respect.

If birth control does not work or was not used an abortion is necessary to prevent an unwanted birth. Your barbaric criminalizing of abortion is brute force.

There is no "responsibility", i.e., religious duty, to cause a fetus to become a child.

Demolishing the statist ideology requires that they see what we call reason all in one fell swoop. Most wars against foes with numerical and financial superiority are won by demoralizing the enemy over a long protracted war such as the Viet Cong waged against America. (Please don't take issue with the word demoralizing. I am not trying to be sarcastic.) I am not trying to start an argument. I want to establish a plan for achieving a mutually agreed upon set of objectives.

Their reasoning says that the welfare statism is in their self-interest by their logic based on flawed premises. Can moochers be convinced of the flaws in their ideology before their financial lifeline is taken away, or does the financial lifeline have to be taken away first? Are you suggesting that they can be convinced via their minds? If so, do they not have to turn their minds back on from the blank out condition that they are currently in? Moreover, if they have not turned their minds back on when conditions are this bad, how realistic is it that they will turn their minds back on later?

Within a year of birth of a child means after birth. Before birth it is not a child or an infant. You can't deduce religious dogma and impose it by context-dropping rationalizing from the dictionary.

There is no such thing as "states" rights. There are only rights of the individual. Subjecting individuals to the demands of a "community" is tribalist and statist. You are trying to ban abortion rights by force.

No one attacked you personally. Your increasingly militiant anti-Ayn Rand posts attacking other people for rejecting faith and religious the anti-abortion crusade do not belong here.

Responding to the Carson interview on his religious anti-abortion, anti-science statements did not change the subject. It is the subject.

Religious based emotions are not a moral argument. "A word is worth a thousand pictures" for those who think conceptually.

There is no "evidence" of crime in excepts of videos of discussions secretly manipulated by activists participating in them in order to manufacture a scandal exploiting later hysterical "interpretations" while ignoring the rest of the videos and actual policy of an organization. This kind of frantic manipulation trying to exploit Federal power to destroy a political target is worse than anything Holder did.

Abortion is not killing children. Recognizing the right of abortion based on individual rights is not a "slippery slope".

No one is advocating or condoning murder and you know it. There is no "personal accountability" to barbaric religious pronouncements.

It's not a new low in his "logic", he is only becoming more overtly militant in his misrepresentations and attacks on Ayn Rand.

Even when it could potentially survive it is still a potential and has no rights. That is a separate issue from what one may want to do knowing it is "viable".

"Children" are not being killed. Abortion is not "infanticide".