My question to you is, do you want abortion banned, yes or no.

You can't seem to even answer that question.

Yes.
You just can't FORCE someone to provide for it to be kept alive, no more than you could force someone to provide for someone, instead of pulling the plug.
Remember, being carried to term is not a right, anymore than free healthcare is.
So, you can pretend the unborn is an adult if you like, with full rights, and it changes nothing about the legal question.

A non-response consists of words that don't address the content, changing the subject. "Responding" with a weather report would also have been non-responsive, but no less relevant. That is how a "response is unresponsive". Understanding that requires reading and understanding content, not just the presence of some words pretending to be a response.

The flippant "Me dino has bought condoms in the past" is not a justification to ban abortion.

It does, however, illustrate how the subjectivism of competing arbitrary dogmatic absolutes demanded to be enforced in law contradict each other with their conflicting 'exemptions': The arbitrary decree that abortion is evil but contraception is not is sinful under the equally arbitrary decree that both are evil. There is no way to resolve in reason disputes between competing faiths: see "Faith and Force".

All that is what you did not address in the non-response. Changing the subject again to the terminology of murdering a pregnant woman is non-responsive. None of it has even attempted to justify why a fetus has "rights" and the woman does not.

The arbitrariness and snide dismissal of serious thought appeared again as "all she's carrying is some good as trash disposable conveniently named fetus". The difference between the concepts 'child' and 'fetus' is essential to understanding, not "convenient names", and none of it is "trash".

So what if the “birth” is accomplished prematurely by a doctor and requires mechanical assistance for a time in order to be kept alive. Does it qualify for “human rights”

That wasn't a yes or no question and I just gave you my position. You need to reread your question and my answer. It is self explanatory.

He not only doesn't understand that, he's playing word games with laws that refers to killing a pregnant woman as a 'double murder'. Any rationalization will do to drop context and avoid conceptual understanding of essentials.

Yes, goofy "tra la la" cartoonish parodies and playground-style taunting are not rational discussion.

That's fine, it has nothing to do with abortion though, which is in no way to be confused with murder of any kind.

The bizarre book by the New Age academic has no influence on anyone but a small group of crackpots. It does not show that "one must recognize that abortion is a sacrament to the regressives" and "abortion is a sacrament to many on the political left". It has no significance even in the sense of an influential Mein Kampf. What do you find "interesting" about it other than its use as a strawman in ridiculing serious defense of the right of abortion?

Perhaps this debate requires a little different perspective. Each taxpayer's portion of the national debt is approximately $175 K, and no doubt, the unfair share that I and most Gulchers pay would be expected to be more than that.

Because of the cumulative effect of all of the looters and moochers, including those whose abortions are financed (about 24% of the costs according to estimates I have seen) and many other types of moochers, my wife and I decided not to have a third child, even though we wanted a third child.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapoth...
The above web site contains a reasonable estimate of abortion frequencies and costs. Most of the costs are born through state taxes, which I pay a lot less of because Florida has no state income tax.

Yes, women have a right to an abortion, but the cumulative effects of their decisions do have an impact on me, and their "right" ceases to be a right as soon as it infringes on others.

I don't want to make you feel guilty. I look at this situation like D'Anconia telling Rearden that his enemies have a powerful weapon that they are using against him (during the money speech). They are using your correct philosophy against you.

If abortions were safe, legal, and rare as Bill Clinton once suggested, then I would not have a significant problem with abortion. With the availability of condoms and morning-after pills as easy as they are, abortions should be rare. They aren't. There are approximately 1 million abortions per year, and that number is not going down.

Going back to my earlier point regarding the financial impact of a huge government's failure to either spend within its means (or restrict its borders), the net effect has been to keep salaries in this country down by importing "future Democrat voters" who show no evidence for responsibility and to reduce the family size of producers. The irony is that this happens at the expense of current Democrat voters even moreso than it happens at the expense of producers.

In essence, the third child we never had is a mooching rotter with a name and face I do not know.

I asked a yes or no question and got this contradiction?

Do you want abortion banned, yes or no? Because it sure sounds like you do, but you seem to be hedging.

Give me your clear position, then we can talk.

That's not true, as both of us are the ones that get marked down, even though we are the ones advocating the positions in line with Objectivism.
The posts of you and Dino SHOULD be marked down, on an Objectivist forum.
That isn't, "trolling."

You were asking if I was "a student of Baphomet or Baal?"
Aside from being completely out of place on an Objectivist forum, it is also completely backwards. Those who would ban abortion, enslaving mankind, are on the side of Baal and Baphomet.

Yes death to the vicious murderer when it is beyond a reasonable doubt. As a grandfather and with my daughter six months pregnant I consider what she is carrying , my next grandchild. Oh yes it’s a boy.

Basically. Just because you can, doesn't mean you should. And there's much deeper reasons why abortion should not be easy, especially later in gestation. Once it becomes accepted at any time for any reason, it will lead to killing at any age, someone who cannot take care of themselves. There must be standards, not laws that people adhere to. I believe objectivism requires doing no harm to others in conquest of our own desires. Killing anything that may be viable meets that standard to me.

It was to my friend Dino and it was about all the markdowns. We see them even when you guys aren't in the conversation...so no reason to feel guilty?
We don't mark anyone down...regardless of their position on things.

The statement (insight) has nothing to do with abortion...it's a fundamental observation of behaviors across the entire spectrum, the lowest common denominator.

Who else could you be speaking to?
There are only two of us putting forward the actual Objectivist position on this issue here, which you seem to have confused for "trolling."
In reality the trolling is this original post, along with the posts supporting it.

Incomprehensible uttering is not "insight."
You seem to be totally unfamiliar with Objectivism.

Another religious leftist who has a dollar sign on an Objectivist forum for some reason, while advocating for gross rights violations by regulating or banning abortion.

So, you don't want abortion banned, but you don't think it's a right?

Was I speaking to you?...you seem to think I was.

Well then, I guess my original insight is correct. The only true division in society is Conscience. Those that have and those that have not.

PS....the left are only altruistic unto themselves,..Oh, and the greater good was only good for Baal...(can't believe mankind fell for that one.)

Just exactly what it says. No more, no less.

You seem confused. This is a forum for Objectivism and those interested in it.
Not politically illiterate, conservative leftists, that want to ban abortion.
Just like it's not for Bernie Bro's that want to nationalize healthcare.

Au contraire. You haven't heard a thing.
But yes, conservatives that oppose abortion, are as left wing as they come, for the reasons explained in the post you're responding to.