What you should regret is the premise that this forum is no better than what you characterize as a "hornet's nest" available for you to "kick". When that is all one can "contribute" it is a waste of time.

Principles are absolute -- they are true in the context in which they are validated. They are not open to contradictions of subjective exceptions.

The principle of the rights of the individual do not permit you to invoke religious demands with or without whatever you deign to grant as an exemption, which exemptions contradict your own premise, but not the deeper premise that contradictions don't matter.

You are "absolutist" in your subjectivist decrees you demand to enforce by law. It doesn't get any more "absolutist" than forcing a woman to bear a child she does not want.

The claims of "stalement" are from those who don't take ideas seriously at all, may or may not have at least some sense that they are losing by the standards of logical argument, don't know what to do beyond the equivalent of snide verbal spitballs, and arbitrarily declare a "stalement" the way they arbitrarily declare everything else.

How much artificial assistance should be used depends on the current state of technology and what is available at the time, including affordability. That question arises for patients in dire straights at all ages every day. It has nothing to do with abortion and does not make the moral status of abortion more complicated.

They apparently are not interested in debate, only in militantly emotional attacks refusing to take ideas seriously. Asking why they are here was a good and legitimate question.

It says a lot about the integrity of this forum and what it has become. No one has to "concede" any position; it's a matter of their refusing to acknowledge the content of, let alone try to discuss, serious explanation, and of mindlessness attacks in what is supposed to be a forum for rational discussion related to Ayn Rand's ideas. This is what happens when a forum is turned over to arbitrary "community standards" promoted by those with no interest in the stated purpose.

"Watching with interest" apparently was meant as a smear against the moderators, falsely implying a double standard through misrepresentation. The poster in particular had previously been called out for some very nasty personal attacks.

"Popping zeroes" is not rational discussion. You did not respond to the demonstration that you did not tell the truth. A sarcastically fake confession that you're a "terrible person for getting bored by all this" evades the misrepresentation. More juvenile personal taunting and snide "make me" defiance expressing personal contempt does not hide or excuse the dishonesty. This is supposed to be a forum for Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason and individualism. Honest, serious discussion is expected, not the verbal equivalent of spit balls and evasive playground taunting against serious posts that conflict with a militant religious conservative crusade.

Anti-abortion laws promoted with the demand that people practice 100% effective birth control in accordance with your wishes or be punished by bearing unwanted children is controlling others' sex lives. Nothing about contraception is an excuse to interfere with a woman's right to choose an abortion when she needs it to protect her own health or chooses not to bear a child. It is not your business and appealing to birth control does not make it your business.

You can believe whatever you want to, but snickering at the purpose of the forum being corrupted by militant emotionalists is not rationally responsive. For those who read for content your own posts defeat yourself.

LOL! Someone just popped a zero on what you wrote after I wrote "Make me."
That's funny as hell!
Yeah, yeah, as for all that other stuff above, I'm a terrible person for getting bored by all this.
Think I'll quit this thread now. Got better things to do.
Congratulations, you won. Hooray for ewv!

Me dino ain't controlling anyone's sex life.

LOL! Me dino anin't popping all the zeores and minus points I keep seeing.
Don't worry, you just wrote in so many other words that you have won.
Guess when I tire of this thread you will believe I'm defeated.
And I'm getting to that not caring anymore point.
Congratulations. (Oops, I just snickered).

Allosaur defendinged a state clerk in charge of marriage licenses who instead of quitting her job blocked all marriage licenses because of her religion, disrupting the entire process for the whole county. He claimed that her disruption was justified because she was being told "to sin before God".

No one said that she had no "right to her religious convictions" and no one told allosaur to "leave the board". He was told that his militant religious injunctions, of which there had previously been many, do not belong on this forum, are not the basis of discussion, and that whether or not it is tolerated is up to the owners.

His accounts of his own statements and the response to them, including in this current thread several times, are not true. You can read what was actually said on the marriage license topic at https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...

Allosaur subsequently stopped promoting and appealing to religion here, which is how he found friendlier terms. Now it's back in pushing to deny a woman's right to control her own body in conflict with his religion, while substituting obnoxious and irrelevant playground style taunting for serious discussion. The responses to him have continued to be serious discussion with explanation. Any "unfriendliness" has been entirely of his own making both in form and content. Anti-intellectual, snide pronouncements pushing government enforcement of religion are truly obnoxious. The assault on a woman's right to her own body will continue to be "brazenly" defied on moral principle.

What are you watching with interest?
What the moderators will do with an Objectivist asking why a religious conservative is on an Obectivist forum starting anti-Objectivist threads, while refusing to concede the Objectivist position?
Not to mention that the Objectivist posts on what is an Objectivist forum, are constantly down-voted by militant, religious leftists, when it should be the other way around.

I'm not sure what you think is being debated.
The Objectivist position on abortion is quite clear and that's what's being communicated here, along with many clear and repeat explanations.
Now if this was a conservative blog, then I could see people would want to make arguments against this position and I'd expect to get all the predictable appeals to emotion, non-sequitur, religiousity and self contradictions, that are common to the anti-abortion position.
I shouldn't expect to see them at Galt's Gulch, though.
That's the truly amazing part here.

The subject here is abortion, which is what you have before any kind of birth.

There's no stalemate here. Just a great many "gulchers" who don't seem to understand or support the Objectivist position on abortion, and ewv patiently explaining it to them.

But Objectivists ARE absolutists.

You mean, you've been thoroughly proven wrong on this subjects, schooled in the correct position from an Objectivist point of view, but still don't want to concede, so are just going to play childish games in the thread instead?
If understanding Objectivism and discussing its application is a "waste of time" to you, then I can't imagine why you'd be here in the first place.
There are plenty of blogs for kooky, conservatives out there.

But abortion doesn't involve any killing of any babies.

It doesn't relate to abortion, which has nothing to do with harming children, because no children are involved in abortion.
Also, this area is not very complicated. You just need to know what individual rights are, what a government role is with respect to them and how to apply this correctly to the issue of abortion.
It's as simple as, abortion is not a rights violation, so should be perfectly legal.

I'm not making any assumptions, I'm stating facts based on what I'm reading.
I am a hoot at a party though, so you got that right :)

You gave both answers indirectly.
That's not an answer, that's an evasion.

It was agreement with what you said, in a way a religious person would say it :)

See, THIS is what I expect to find on an Objectivist forum.
Really well said.