plusaf; You're absolutely correct. But I'm pretty confident that he understands that point very well. It just seems to me that the attempt has been fairly obvious from the initial posting.

I believe that any confident Objectivist understands from the very basis of rational thought that slavery is a wrong that cannot be ethically or morally justified nor can it be arrived at through some political compromise. There can be no compromise of the ownership of one's life and body or mind and self determination. A potential can never take precedence over what is. That leads only to altruism.

Zen, why not point out that Robbie's questions and answers about 'use of force' seem to be focused on the fetus and ignore the woman carrying the fetus?

In one strict sense, arguing only for the fetus is saying that the parasite is always more important than the host! I can not understand THAT 'logic' at all.

I'm so sorry. It's hard to get the pictures out of my mind.

By your thinking, discussing the very issue of a viable fetus is a cowardly move to dodge the real question of the case of a non-viable fetus.

What defines a 'human being' is a live, conscious, aware, and self determining entity. As to a moment when that occurs, you'd need to discuss it with a neurophysician/scientist. As to terminating a life; force may only be used in the defense of one's life or property and only to the extent necessary to affect that purpose.

That is the extent of my discussion of this matter by me.

Your questions are at best disingenuous, implying that a fetus or pre-natal is a human being. But i'll tackle it anyway.

Force is moral if responding to and defending the life and property of a human being. That right belongs to the woman who is alive, conscious, aware, and capable of self determination. A fetus at any stage is not conscious or aware at any point until a few weeks after birth at least. It is only a potential human being until that point.

No problem, Robbie!

I'm still a newbie Objectivist, so I don't think I can answer your questions in a satisfactory way. I still have lots to learn!

You might want to take a look into this thread though, there's a lot of info there:

http://forum.objectivismonline.com/?show...

The answer for the first one is easy though. Force should only be used against another for self-defense, in response to a previous aggression.

Maybe they haven't seen your post yet. I think there are more libertarians and conservatives than objectivists around here.

Take a look at this thread: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/?show...

There's a nice debate over there!

Oh, thanks, Lucky.

I definitely need to read more arguments from both sides though. This is the subject that divides Objectivists the most, I suppose.

Macro- a very good summary.
It is an over-simplification but it gets a (virtual) point from me.

Robbie; I suspect you're really looking for venues to argue your position on the issue, but nevertheless, I'll toss in from what I believe is a rational objectivist viewpoint, though I certainly don't pretend to speak for any other Objectivist, nor female.

The arguments all boil down to the ownership of the woman's body and life. Both are her's and it is her decision and choice by right of existence. Any other choice or argument results in the slavery of the woman, if it's against her will.

I have less sympathy for the woman if the abortion occurs in the late stages of the fetus' development. That's not a problem though, as most abortions occur in the very first month.

If the fetus is already able to survive outside of the womb, without draining the mother's resources like a parasite, then yes, I would think of considering this abortion a murder, I suppose.

P.S. This subject is really complex... I definitely need to read more about it before I decide where I really stand on it.

Why only rape or incest? I would also include situations like the condom having a hole in it, the pill not working for whatever reason, the boyfriend not pulling out quick enough. And most importantly: the girl not wanting to have a baby.

Again, do you think it's fair that a woman must carry on with a pregnancy against her own will? By being forced by the state? Her suffering will be unbearable. I have way more empathy for her the for the baby. "Pro-Life" they say. What about the Life of the woman?

I don't get it when you exclude situations like rape though. This sounds logically inconsistent to me. If you value the life of the baby, then you surely want to defend its life, the life of an innocent, even if it was brought to this world through cruel means like rape.

To me there are only two options:

1. The state having the power and the authority to force women to carry on with pregnancies, against their will, no matter how much physical and psychological pain that could bring them. Even in cases like rape or incest. (Bad)

2. Or, allowing women to own their own bodies no matter the circumstances. (Good)

I would not accept anything in-between. That doesn't sound proper to me.