How could a response be unresponsive? I responded, didn't I?
Just because anyone doesn't respond in a way you don't like doesn't mean they are being unresponsive.
Heck, I'm responding right now. When I don't write anything that's when I do not respond.
Like those many times when I decide that responding to you is a waste of time anyhoo.

There is a big difference between circumcision and the butchery of removing a tortured to death fetus.

Me dino would hater for me heart not to beat. I value myself and all of human life at any developmental stage as more valuable and far more precious than a than a monkey. Hey, even that of an ape.
Even more than those wonderfully brilliant dolphins! Tell that last bit to a PETA or an Antifa lib and I just might be attacked.

Yes, that book is ridiculous. However, the entire socialist movement is ridiculous. The left uses the abortion industry as one of its foundational pillars. While any individual woman has the right to an abortion, he/she does not have the right to do it at my expense.

What the left has done is play an elaborate game of chess. By including people who support abortion on philosophical grounds with looters and moochers, the left has cobbled together enough votes to confiscate everyone's wealth to support its agenda.

The abortion situation from the left's perspective is not that much different from those of teachers' unions. The government dollars flow out of our pockets into those of government bureaucrats who give it to those who support them. If you oppose government funded (free?) education, you are "against the children".

Your correct philosophy has been turned against you by the looters, and you are providing your sanction to your own victimization.

Plus a trillion if I could.

A fetus does not attain rights; the child begins to have rights when it is born. Birth is the "when". The article you probably have in mind is "Of Living Death", Ford Hall Forum 1968, "an extended analysis of the 1968 papal encyclical Humanae Vitae, laying bare the vicious motives behind the Catholic Church’s views on sex, contraception and abortion" in The Voice of Reason and available here: https://campus.aynrand.org/works/1968...

You don't need anyone's permission to say that progressives are regressive. It isn't even new. And I don't need your permission for what to write in responding to a post in a connected sequence.

Now you acknowledge, which I had not presumed, that you like the whole post smearing the right of abortion as nothing but "progressive", which is an illogical package deal, and smearing a woman's choice to not bear a child as a "sacrament to regressives", which is simply disgusting. Progressive versus dogmatic religious conservativism is a false alternative. They are both regressive.

The right of abortion is the right of a woman to control her own body. That is what the anti-abortionists condemn as they yell "NOT a right". Of course it is a right. Ayn Rand described the nature and source of rights in her "Man's Rights" and "The Objectivist Ethics".

Rights pertain to people, who have the characteristics that give rise to the entire subject of morality. They do not apply to other entities.

Those who deny the rights of women while attributing "rights" to fetuses treat the concept of "rights" as a floating abstraction, disconnected from the facts that give rise to it. They emotionally attach "rights" to whatever they want and dogmatically demand that government force be employed to enforce their feelings. The burden of proof is on those who claim that a fetus or earlier stages have rights and the women do not. Their emotional approach of outbursts shows that they don't know why any of us have rights.

Demeaning women who don't want to bear a child as "trash" is disgusting.

A late term abortion means before birth, not "plop". When you find someone who actually wants to kill babies, let us know, but it doesn't mean abortion and has nothing to do with it. Those hysterically trying to tie the emotional imagery of "killing babies" to abortion don't know the difference. They invoke the false imagery to inculcate emotional opposition to abortions at all stages.

Where is the imagined discussion for you? He said nothing about killing babies. As has already been discussed on this forum he was talking about severe deformity and nonviable births. The question of what kind of extraordinary measures might be taken or not taken to keep hopeless patients of all ages alive arises every day across the country. He did not say he wanted to "kill babies".

One can not "tell" anything to a fetus. It has no concepts and does not understand. It isn't even yet a person. It passively reacts to stimuli; it does not "shrink away" the way a person does. "Films" showing pictures to inculcate projections to manipulate emotions are not an argument.

Flashing of lights is not rational discussion.

The Endangered Species Act giving "rights" to other species is another example of emotions violating the rights of people who are punished. The purpose of proper government is to protect the rights of people, not eggs, obscure plants or fetuses.

There is no "baby" before it's born. Calling it a baby is a metaphor, typically used by those who want to have a child. Telling people to go to NY to be stabbed is stupid and does not represent what anyone would do, with or without the giddy "tra la".

If NY had the death penalty or at least guaranteed life imprisonment for murderers he could only be punished once.

Smearing the right of a woman to her own body as a meaningless "sacrament of regressives" is disgusting, not "light". "Good and Evil" are not some kind of things battling daily, good and evil represent moral judgments of the character, ideas, and actions of individuals. Ignorant dogma promoted as government enforced duty to force women to bear children they don't want is evil.

A rambling series of arbitrary decrees ignoring the concept of the rights of the individual is not an impressive post.

None of that even attempts to explain why a fetus should have "rights" and women supposedly do not have a right to their own bodies. Yelling about "gross personal responsibility", demands to control other people's sex lives, "absolute" decrees and appeals to "strong images and emotions" are irrelevant. Your demands to force women who don't want to bear children are barbaric.

The right of a woman to decide for herself if she wants an abortion is none of your business. It has nothing to do with objecting to tax-funded entitlements. Public funding of abortions is not the only area in which government uses force in matters of "a highly personal issue", and does not justify demanding to ban abortions. Of the unlimited number of examples of interfering in "personal issues", another one is the use of government force to compel women to bear children they don't want. The intrusions don't get any more "personal" than that. Religious conservatives versus welfare statism are a false alternative.

Religions that forbid the use of contraception do so on grounds of their mystical dogmas against interfering with what they call "God's will". It is just as arbitrary as the competing religions that subjectively forbid abortions but not contraception, or forbid abortions with arbitrarily decreed "exceptions". It is not "clearly an attempt to increase the population of those religions" -- the biggest one of all, the Catholic Church, demands to forbid both contraception and abortions world wide, not just for its own church subjects. There is no excuse for banning abortion or any other kind of theocracy.

As I understand it, the issue is when exactly a fetus becomes a human and therefore has “rights”. I remember rand had a statement on this subject

So does killing a monkey. A "beating" heart does not make anything a person. You do not have rights because your heart beats.

That is nonresponsive. When a woman, and presumeable the man, want to have a child and the fetus is killed along with her, of course the killer should be accountable for it. Regardless of legal terminology it does mean that the fetus, which is still a potential human being, is a murdered person. Word games are not conceptual understanding.

The concept of a fetus is based on the facts of the developing potential person, not an arbitrary name for trash. Those kind of sarcastically flippant irrelevancies that make no sense are not serious discussion.

So a person is defined as a body with a beating heart? Abortion is done far before any self is made. It can not be just the pain done to the fetus that seems to be one of the reasons against abortion. Many good people do not care about pain to the born baby when they cut off the foreskin of a baby boy. They reason that the baby is not old enough to feel the pain and if it does it does not have an advanced enough brain to remember the mutilation. Oh but, he will not be kidded in the shower like the other boys.

The dark disappears with a click of the button.

You responded to me and I did not say anything about the subject, I responded to a term I liked in JB's post. I stand on my statement, abortion is NOT a right, it's a choice. No need in responding. Your not changing my position. I'm done responding.

Kill my born unborn fetus, Doc. I'm trash and I don't want it.