You wrote that "It ceased being just her body being involved when she created a new body inside herself". And you wrote initially, when you started the thread, "I have always believed a baby is a human being with the right to live from the point of conception."

That is what I addressed, so don't change the topic of what I addressed as if you meant "the point of delivery". That is not at the "moment of birth", whatever you now mean by "mostly referring" to something else.

You started the thread with the assertion, "the governors of Virginia and New York want to kill babies after they are born in the name of abortion rights." That is the false impression given by the article you linked to, but it isn't true. It is what the anti-abortion lobby wants to believe because it doesn't itself understand the difference between pre vs post birth -- abortion vs infanticide -- and is drumming up hysteria over "infanticide" as if it means abortion.

The anti-abortion movement demands to prohibit as much abortion as it can get away with, beginning with conception, and that is a big problem for the rights of the individual, specifically the women it seeks to control. All of it is dishonestly portrayed as opposing "killing babies".

Passively reacting to stimuli in the womb is not perception of the external world. Prior to birth the fetus has the biological apparatus to exercise its mental and physical capacities, but cannot yet do so for obvious reasons. It is still a potential.

You wrote that "We will always have mob rule". That isn't true. It depends on the proper ideas being accepted.

The parasitic dependence of a fetus in not eating and breathing. A new born infant immediately begins to perceive the external world. That is the beginning of the active exercise of the conscious mind in contrast to passive sentience. It does not mean your snide "doubt" that a one month old thinks "conceptually about a future human life".

If the act of birth is an abrupt change, is a baby born by c-section not really a person, just a potential?

You can imagine it suddenly changes into something else, but there is ample evidence that a late term baby reacts to external stimuli, including sounds from the mother's environment.

Other than starting to breathe, the mind and nervous system are exactly the same immediately before birth and after it. Pretty much all the systems in the body are functioning just the same.

In my son's case he needed bilirubin lights because the liver is one of the last organs to mature and his wasn't quite up to managing his body.

Franklin did say that.

A proper society based on understanding the right philosophical ideas retains knowledge and rationality as virtues; it does not fall by default into recklessly turning into a mob.

The Enlightenment made the constitution and the founding of this country possible, but it did not have a full philosophical defense of the rights of the individual, and the emphasis on egoism was only implicit in the "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Those intellectual weaknesses made the counter Enlightenment appeal to altruism and collectivism much easier.

Yes, and we live in such a public which does not understand the concept of the rights of the individual. The majority of this country has bought into collectivist thinking -- which is why much of the constitutional limits on government are ignored.

A constitutional government does not prevent mob rule if the people running the government ignore it.

We do not always have to have mob rule. A constitutional government prevents that. "All it takes" to subvert that is not a "leader with a lot of public support". That "public support" for mob rule requires a public that does not understand the concept of the rights of the individual and the necessity of a government limited to protecting that. A public that does understand it is not a "mob". A-philosophical libertarians plunge into politics without regard for understanding the philosophical basis of "public opinion", which is not trying to "educate a mob".

Repeatedly dismissing anything that conflicts with your assertions as "just opinion" is not an argument. Not every opinion has the same worth, it depends on the reasons for it.

The concept of rights is a moral concept based on the factual nature of living people who use their minds to comprehend the external world and make choices. See Ayn Rand's "The Objectivist Ethics" and "Man's Rights". That is the basis for the fact that rights pertain to people, not whatever someone feels like. It's not "just opinion".

To take the concept of rights and misapply it as an entitlement to be born by an entity without the characteristics that give rise to morality and rights is to misuse the concept of rights as a floating abstraction that is meaningless. Yet that is at best what anti-abortionists do when they glibly demand "rights" for the unborn based on a vague notion of human rights. Worse are the religious mystics demanding a duty to procreate and protect mystical souls in accordance with faith in duty to God's Will.

That cognitive misappropriation of the concept 'rights' is not just as good as any other "opinion". It sabotages rational understanding. Further using it to rationalize government force to control other people by the force of law is an unconscionable injustice and violation of rights on the basis of nothing but subjectivism -- mostly inspired in this case by its origins in, or overt repetition of, religious faith.

Such is the nature of faith and force when reason is abandoned for competing and conflicting subjective "opinions" deemed to be 'just as good' as any other opinion, while denying the relevance of the rational basis for "opinions" the perpetrator does not happen to like.

The act of birth is an abrupt change, not a barely noticeable change in a continuum. The entity exists before that under vastly different conditions, including the lack of cognition of the external world in any but the most vague and indirect way, but not as a person. It is still a potential person. "Take it out", prematurely or not, and it is no longer just a potential. You were not holding a baby in a womb, and what was "going on behind those eyes" was not the same as when it was in the womb.

When one is born and becomes a person. But with the necessity of parental responsibility some rights come later with maturity. Minors, for example, can't own property.

Is there any significant such individualist classical liberal movement anywhere in Europe now? Europe is generally more collectivist than here.

This is a great short summary of the meaning of right and left.

Liberal is esp confusing b/c in most countries it means classical liberalism, in some ways opposite to US liberalism.

Their contradiction is excusing what they call "murder" as a "separate case" if it is in response to a rape. The alleged "innocent baby", in their terminology, didn't cause the rape. That is not their only inconsistency with "special cases", which range as broadly as exempt trimesters to exempt contraception.

"Bearing the substantial burden of a malformed child" is not a "matter of convenience".

But misusing the concept of "rights" as a floating abstraction disconnected from the facts that give rise to it as a moral concept is more fundamental than the various narrower contradictions among the arbitrary maneuvering with "special cases".

In reference to the mindless bulk 'downvoter', this is what OldUglyCarl wrote:

"The only real related choice a women has is: to screw or not to screw...that is the question. Ya takes your chances and you deal with the outcome...ahhhh, that's called accountability for one's own actions!"

That is indeed a sick view of sex and responsibility. This is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum.

No one called you names. The description of the situation on this forum wasn't even addressed to you. Misusing "ad hominem" as a floating abstraction to attack someone is itself a name-calling ad hominem.

"Except it's obviously not BS..." Why? Because you would like that way?

"...what they really want is to control peoples sex lives." There you go again, making up stuff. No one here wants to control anyone's sex life. The point being made is having sex can have consequences as in a cause-effect relationship. That simple position has nothing to do with any kind of control. It just is, like A=A.

You need to re-read my opening comment and all of the other comments. This post has nothing to do with you or your opinions.

I was talking about the planned Parenthood people in the video. This is done for money . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jjxwV...

The whole discussion has been about me pointing out the self-evident fact that abortion is not infanticide and conflating the two is intellectually dishonest.

Like I said in my earlier post...I agree with all who posted. But, and this is important. There was a time, not too long ago, when a woman's life could be totally ruined by an unexpected pregnancy. Happily today, society is more accepting of this and it proves we have grown up. But in your expressions, consider what may have happened long before some of you were born and don't let your expressions be too harmful to someone who didn't have your opportunities. I had a friend who didn't have a choice, a darling mother of three healthy boys who lost her only little girl because of society's prejudices and ignorance. She never got over it.

What I meant and should have said was, "threatened by the perversions of...." I have no complaint re western civilization except that we do not defend it against its enemies within.

"feel threatened by our great western civilization."
I think reactionary elements of all the major religions of the world feel threatened by reason and liberty, i.e. "Western civilization".

"We will always have mob rule so it's important to educate the mob, not just put a constitution in place."
Yes. I used to think the constitution needed "teeth" to prevent mob rule, but pieces of paper do not have teeth.

"This would be the problem with any real "Gulch", because it would probably be stunningly productive and attract looters."
Even if outside force could be prevented, eventually citizens get careless with their republic. The prosperity leads to a feeling that there's no danger whatsoever of the republic turning into a mob.
I don't know if the quote/story is apocryphal, but Ben Franklin supposedly said it's a Republic "if you can keep it" walking out of the constitutional convention.

"There is no such thing as the rights of those who have not been born."
When do rights begin?