Once it's born it's born, regardless of the method used to induce birth. Some form of "mechanical assistance" is common in medicine today.

Snide comments are not discussion. You have been avoiding responding to conceptual understanding by substituting evasive tangential wise cracks and equivocation in verbal manipulation, as in the issue just described to you. You should know enough about Ayn Rand by now to know the importance of concepts, definitions and logic.

These are the words that came out of your mouth (fingers), not put there by someone else: "Kill my born unborn fetus, Doc. I'm trash and I don't want it."

"Kill my unborn fetus" is not "AFTER it was born."

Teaming up on who? There's two of us and dozens of you, who seem to think abortion is something Objectivists oppose, because you haven't grasped the basics.
Objectivism is not, in any way shape or form, related to conservatism.
I think that's the main confusion here.

If that was the case, you'd be able to prove it, instead of posting inanities.

Teaming up on me! Whoa! That's even heavier!

And also correct.

It sure ain't you!

This doesn't have anything to do with why abortion should or should not be legal.
That question is answered by asking if rights are violated.
Since abortion is not a rights violation, because the unborn don't have any rights and being carried to term is not a right, it should be perfectly legal.
All this other stuff has nothing to do with it.

Methinks you may have left a word out of that sentence.

Preach.

Yea, you've missed the point.

That would be a rights violation.
That has nothing to do with abortion.
This line of thinking from you is what's called a, "non-sequitur."

You say that like there's any doubt about it.

Not to someone who knows what he's talking about.

The right of abortion has nothing to do with entitlements and no one has any right to interfere with women choosing to not bear children in the name of not wanting taxes paying for them. You don't even have any idea how many abortions are private and not subsidized. Defending the right of a woman to not bear children she doesn't want is not "using your correct philosophy against you". Trying to invoke Rearden and Francisco for this bizarre argument is even more bizarre. What will you do next, oppose the right to eat and go to a doctor because of government subsidies?

“That’s Fine”
Please , I don’t need or want your endorsement.

You said "at some point it's removing an individuals right to live". Since we are talking about abortion, not killing children, that means you claim a fetus can have "rights", and in particular is entitled to be born. Why?

The concept 'rights' applies to people, not a potential, but
on your premise an abortion violates the "right to live" which would be murder. Yet you refuse to answer whether you want to ban it. Do you want only "standards" and not "laws" against murder?

You also wrote (shouted) that "abortion is NOT a right". Rights pertain to a social context, i.e., involving more than oneself. They are moral principles sanctioning freedom of action in a social context, and are legally protected by a proper government, with the only restriction being that one cannot violate others' rights. When a woman chooses to not bear a child she is the only person involved. You are involving yourself as another person. If you don't acknowledge that she has a right to control her own body to not bear a child then whose rights do you claim are violated? What do you propose to do to people who do things you claim they have no right to do?

You also said you don't want abortion to be "easy" and don't want it to be just "accepted at any time for any reason," as if the woman's choice and her reasons are not relevant to her freeedom of action. What do you propose to do to make it not "easy", i.e., difficult?

Abortion means preventing a potential from becoming a person through being born, not "killing someone at any age". 'Before birth' does not have an "age" of a person and is not a "someone". But on your premises you claim that abortion "will lead to killing at any age someone who cannot take care of themselves". Why?

You said, "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should". That applies to every choice. Whether you should do something depends on what you want to accomplish. Whether or not a woman should give birth to a child or have an abortion depends most fundamentally on whether she wants to have a child. How do you apply the generality -- "just because you can, doesn't mean you should" -- to condemn a woman who does not want to have a child for not having one?

You said that "I believe objectivism requires doing no harm to others in conquest of our own desires." That is not true. Objectivism says to not violate others' rights or behave dishonestly or unjustly. It does not say that no one else should never be vaguely "harmed", as for example, through competition or in being first to discover something. It does not apply to a fetus at all, which is not an "other", i.e., a person, and does not mean that a woman has an obligation to sacrifice herself to a potential by bearing a child she does not want because a fetus would "harmed".

Wherever you are getting this from it isn't Objectivism.

Me dino never wrote I want to ban abortion. I think it should be limited just like good old Slick Willie once said.
I have contributed money toward defunding Planned Parenthood. A reason the Dems are so fond of abortion is that part of the PP funding is kicked back as campaign donations solely for the party with a socialist movement.

That’s a good point. So let’s say the baby is born the regular way but the mother doesn’t want to feed it (can’t force her to feed it). So what’s the moral question then?

Wow, I'm avoiding conceptual understanding of essentials. That's heavy.

Well, I don't consider my "tra la la" as goofy due to my opinion that it is peachy keen.
What is or is not goofy relies on the eye of the beholder.
But if you want to think my "tra la la" is goofy, this is a free country. I can't stop you and wouldn't even try.

Abortion being called a sacrament is what I find interesting.

Yeah, you're as objective as that "conservative left" notion of yours.

LOL! That's nuts!