Blarman is a religionist who has written that Islam is a "beautiful religion" but he "can only follow one master". He also wrote on this forum that he started to read OPAR but became bored and couldn't finish it. Understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is not what he is here for, except to try to undermine it -- without understanding it -- with religious conservative rationalizations on behalf of his faith.

Blarman's post is non-responsive and irrelevant to the rejection of the conservative notion of rights depending on duty. There are no "moral imperatives"; that is a Kantian duty approach to ethics contradicting the requirement of moral standards in order to live.

No one said it is "moral to pursue self delusion" or "perfectly acceptable" to panic people in a crowded theater in the name of "free speech". No one has to "answer" Blarman's "simple questions" diverting discussion into irrelevancy.

BiggestShoelaces: "First, I would like to remind the Gulch that up and down votes are not about your feelings, and agreements, but that it is for voting on whether that post is worthy of discussion."

The forum is also supposed to be for those with an interest in Ayn Rand's ideas and rational discussion, not militant religious conservatives emotionally pushing their feelings and repeating the same rationalizations over and over, which is not a basis for discussion at all.

There are many conservatives here who have at least some sense of life attraction to Atlas Shrugged and enough respect for reason that they do discuss ideas (sometimes with good knowledge). But there are a few who keep repeating the same emotional dogmas and rationalizations without regard to prior refutations and explanations, and who emotionally 'downvote' rational discussion (especially ideas of Ayn Rand) contrary to their feelings, or do so emotionally and rotely as part of the 'crusade' without any attempt at response at all, 'downvoting' posts in bulk based on who writes them. They obviously don't belong here.

The act of birth is part of the natural process, not a "choice" of the fetus to be born; it could not think in such terms. It doesn't decide, "now I'll crack the egg and climb out". The basic act of choice is the choice to focus, which requires being in the external world where there is something to focus on, even if pre-conceptually, in contrast to the passive sensations from stimuli in the "egg".

And a fetus cannot begin to choose to perceive the world and begin to identify what it is seeing. It's mental capacity is restricted to passive sensations of stimuli. It lives in the sense of a completely biological parasitic entity.

This equivocation between human cells and a human person is the stock pretense to "science" from the anti-abortionists. It is in fact a subjectivist, religious argument.

The concepts and principles of morality and the rights of man are objectively based on the nature and requirements of a human being, a person, who must use his mind to make choices in order to live, not the presence of dna regardless of anything else. Dropping that context and misappropriating "rights" as a floating abstraction is at best a logical error.

Human dna is required for a clump of cells or a zygote to eventually become a human being; it does not create "rights of cells" by itself. The dna in a zygote, and ultimately in the pre-birth process the fetus, determines characteristics of a potential person -- if and when it is born and becomes a human being. The "science of dna" certainly does not "affirm that the fetus is entirely an individual human being" -- any more than affirming that a single cell or a zygote is a human being -- and that science says nothing at all about requirements for morality and rights of human beings.

The notion of "human because it has human dna" is a typically religious argument subjectively pronouncing "rights" somehow intrinsic to biological humaness without regard to the source and meaning of rights as a moral concept pertaining to people, not cells. Religionists begin with faith in "rights" of human cells as a meaningless floating abstraction, subjectively decreed as somehow intrinsic to human cells, then in the name of science point to dna in the cells to rationalize their prior faith, as if we didn't already know that human zygotes don't become giraffes, and as if this mental processes had any connection to the objectivity and clarity of thinking required in real science. It's a phony, dishonest appeal to science to put over a subjectivist religious dogma.

Contrary to Blarman, an objective conceptual basis for the moral rights of people based on their nature does not lead to "infanticide" and no one with such an understanding has advocated that. The state bill pertaining to third trimester abortions doesn't either -- it's misrepresented that way by anti-abortionists who don't know the difference themselves. They are the ones ascribing their floating abstraction of "rights" to anything with dna "because they say so".

A haughty, presumptuous lecturing us on what we "might take profitable note of" on the etymological origin of a "word", not a concept, is a typical irrelevancy from Blarman. Even in strained rationalism it does nothing in defense of the anti-abortion demands.

The valid concept of a fetus is not a "recent revisionism". Conservative appeals to anti-conceptual, unprincipled traditionalism are even more peculiar in the light of the lack of any mention in the founding of this country of alleged constitutional "rights" of the unborn.

He not only want to prevent what he thinks is irrational, he wants to prevent other's rational choices that conflict with his imposed duties.

Blarman: "Not get knocked up in the first place if they aren't willing to bear the resulting child! Use contraception at a bare minim"

Getting "knocked up" is a disgusting way to characterize sex. But whatever anyone having sex thinks of it in contrast to that mentality, the purpose of sex is obviously often not to "bear the resulting child", nor is there any need to. There is no duty to bear a child as a result of pregnancy, whether or not contraception is used and whether or not it works if it is.

Blarman: "The whole argument in this debate is from people who want to have it both ways: they want the pleasure that comes with sex but not the responsibilities that come with the resulting children. It is an avoidance of reality - an attempt to redefine choice and consequence."

This dogma has been refuted here many times and Blarman keeps repeating it as if it means something other than his own authoritarian impositions.

The "whole argument" is not from "having it both ways". The argument against the anti-abortionists is that they savagely violate the rights of the individual on behalf of their mystical injunctions demanding a woman to bear a child. What he denigrates as "having it both ways" is a choice to pursue human pleasure and to not bear a child.

His mystical injunctions denying that are not "reality" and not bearing a child isn't "avoidance of reality". Bearing a child is a choice, not a duty required to be paid as the cost of pleasure. Choosing pleasure without having to bear a child is not "redefining choice and consequence". It is rejection of Blarman's obnoxious demand to prohibit choice and to dictate the consequences he wants himself.

That obnoxious demand is right out of the dogma of the Church denigrating human pleasure as an end in itself while imposing a duty to act in accordance with an imagined God's will dictating what "consequences" are allowed. It is the same Church mentality that tried to ban anesthesia on the dogma that it was Godl's will that people suffer as "natural" to being "His creatures".

All of it is disgusting anti-man dogma, not "reality" that we dare not avoid.

Blarman: " I want rational people, absolutely!".

Is that a joke? Obviously he does not want rational people. He wants submissive people. He demands that we follow mystical dogma in accordance with an imposed duty. He denies the morality, and our right, to make our own choices to achieve our own rational goals through rational means in accordance with rational knowledge of cause and effect -- that he damns as "avoiding reality" for not submitting to a sick, anti-man "reality" he wants to impose.

Blarman does not get to dictate to the rest of us what reality is. He does not get to dictate which causal factors, such as the cause and effect of abortion, are not allowed to be employed through choices he prohibits in the name of an unchosen duty he misrepresents as "responsibility".

That he comes onto an Ayn Rand Forum demanding such mysticism and duty in the name of reality and responsibility is truly obnoxious.

What actual science is there that denies that the fetus is an individual human being?

DNA? Is it human? Yup. Is it distinct and unique from the mother (or father)? Yup. Is it in the process of developing into a horse? Nope. Starfish? Nope. Anything but a human? No. It is simply building enough mass so as to specialize and fulfill all the coding in that DNA - a process which requires time and nutrients (and a host environment).

Is the female body specially equipped to provide the perfect nurturing environment for a developing human being? Yes. And is that same environment found in the male body? No. Therefore the division of the sexes fulfills a very specific role inimical to the propagation of the species - which also originates in one's DNA. Also, due to the inordinate complexity of pregnancy, it also can not be argued to be anything short of a fulfillment of the mother's DNA as well, as she certainly doesn't spend her time willing the development of the new child.

This being the case, the science of DNA most assuredly affirms that the fetus is entirely an individual human being.

Your arguments above don't actually address the issue of whether or not the fetus is human, they simply point out the physical deficiencies present at various stages of development. That can be said about just about anyone at any time (just look at leftists ;) but it is hardly a scientific measure of humanity itself. If one only judges someone to be "human" who is perfectly formed with all their proper functions, we tread on very dangerous grounds - the very grounds which have led to the proposal of this law. Because those very same people who propose infanticide rely on the very same arguments being used here: that a human being isn't a human being until they say so.

You might take profitable note of the origin of the word "fetus":

https://www.etymonline.com/word/fetus

It has only been recent revisionism which has attempted to render to the fetus any kind of recognition other than that of a human being...

"Causing a panic violates people's rights."

So therefore the Right to Speech is not unlimited as you suggest, i.e. there are limits to its proper expression. I completely agree. Duty is nothing more and nothing less than to recognize and respect the boundaries inherent in our expression of Rights. To violate those boundaries and infringe on others' rights is an abrogation of duty and may be penalized.

"It is moral to pursue self-delusion, it is irrational, but it is moral to pursuit your happiness."

So according to your view, it is entirely moral to be irrational, i.e. refusing to acknowledge Reality. Oooookay, then. I'll leave you to your pursuit of irrationality and the happiness you think may result from such.

Do you believe that it is perfectly acceptable to exercise your right to Speech by yelling "FIRE" in a movie theatre?

As to the rest, please answer my very simple and direct question: "is it moral to pursue self-delusion, i.e. is there a moral imperative to pursue Reality?"

"You have no right to stop the irrational from doing what they want, as long as it doesn't interfere with another's right. "

I never intimated otherwise. But along the same path, I have no responsibility to treat the irrational as if it were rational.

"Procreation is not a duty"

Again, I never intimated otherwise. But when one chooses to employ one's procreative powers, one can not choose to divest one's self of the consequences.

"Sobriety is not a duty."

Here I will simply ask the following question: is it moral to pursue self-delusion, i.e. is there a moral imperative to pursue Reality?

"Rights don't care about your hopes."

Neither do they respect one's self-afflicted delusions. On the other hand, Rights do carry with them a duty for responsible use or they may be restricted or taken away.

"what do you suppose women that want an abortion to do"

Not get knocked up in the first place if they aren't willing to bear the resulting child! Use contraception at a bare minimum.

The whole argument in this debate is from people who want to have it both ways: they want the pleasure that comes with sex but not the responsibilities that come with the resulting children. It is an avoidance of reality - an attempt to redefine choice and consequence.

"what do you want drug addicts to do?"

Not shoot up, obviously! I want rational people, absolutely! If one is consuming mind-altering substances, he or she is by definition no longer rational. Thus all talk about using reason on those who have intentionally removed it from their life is in and of itself a farce.

"You are just complaining to complain if your view is just that you wish people would do better"

To the contrary, I can't avail myself of someone's particular expertise, their products, or their services if they are not in a rational state of mind to conduct business. I lose out on that opportunity to pursue my own self interest - and so do they. Not only that, but the person in a drug-induced irrational state is more likely to infringe upon my self-interested pursuits than the rational person. I'd say those were pretty valid complaints, wouldn't you?