Well, regarding, mhubb's comment, Henry Ford was an avowed antisemite, and any positive comments about him must not lose sight of that salient fact.

Also, the first automobile production line was invented by Ranson Olds, and not Henry Ford as many believe.

First, we separate business and abortion.
Objectivism holds: Values and, subsequently morality, are solely based upon mortality.
That which is [for] life, by nature and nurture is good. That which is against life is evil.

Life has certain characteristics, defined by science [objectively] of which self-sustained metabolism and procreation are maxims [irrefutable]
Mutually agreed upon procreation for humans is [for] life. Hedonism and rape are irrespective of objectivity toward life.
A lack of respect toward life is evil.

Those who would practice hedonism (male and female) and rape (male) deserve no public support, yet I propose penalty, as vermin can overbreed resources.
In the instance of rape; female choice is optional. Abortion is anti the aggressor [male] life and the force that was initiated. Male life to be terminated as disease of cancer would. Do not let anti-life infect the culture. I will publicly support the child as long as the male is terminated.

In the instance of hedonism; choice of life, procreative couple to raise child. The choice of not to raise a child results in termination of the couple and public adoption of the child.

It's simple; no sport fucking no problems.

Institute this as policy and the potential of violation will drop to near zero. And a culture will ensue toward healthier relations.

Yes, I have read many of Rand's works.
While I believe in Laissez-Faire, I have traveled a slightly different path than Rand.
"Big Business"? Any exchange of value between two honest individuals is a good thing. "Money/value" is like electricity, it is only good when it is moving.
Abortion? This is a hard one. Apparently, Rand has a valid point in determining that every human being has a valid reason to exist and think. This is of course, non-debatable. But when does any being become living? Someone is not considered dead until their heart, not their brain, stops. Using that standard, does it not seem plausible that a yet-to-be-delivered human is not also alive when its heart begins beating, at about 7 weeks?
Is the delivery of a gestating human the lone action that places a stamp of HUMAN on its validity? Is the passage through a cervix the same as the passage through the "Pearly Gates"? (just had to). Would this then equate "Saint Peter" to "Margaret Sanger"? Who gets in (SP) or out (MS) and who goes on to "hell"
"Rand" helps clear my thinking. I rely on her rationale, but I retain the concept that the existence with a beating heart inside of a perfectly designed natural incubation chamber (mother's womb) is not also a human. Just at an age of seven weeks.

I agree. I notice a certain pervasive snarkiness on this forum. A lot of smart people with bad social skills, perhaps?

Pardon me but I think a man trying to understand anything about abortion equates to a woman trying to explain prostatitis!

I read most of her work, but I have to say that I do make up my own mind and live with the consequences. I would engage in abortion if I were a woman. It seems just like a low rent way out of self created problem. I am not anti business, but I do think they have to treat people fairly and NOT use government to get special privileges at the expense of others.

There seems to be a number of posts arguing against abortion and pro-abortion. But since humans first walked upright and became self aware, they knew what caused pregnancy even if they did not know how it worked. Now in this day and age would it not be better to prevent the pregnancy than to undergo what is invasive surgery. What planned parent hood does not do is teach women how not to get pregnant because it would hurt the baby killing business and the selling of fetal tissue for research.

I haven't read all of her works. 'Atlas' and 'the fountainhead'. I enjoyed both. I didn't agree with everything she wrote, but did think most of it was prophesy ( and has been proved as such) of Obama's and Biden's administrations.

Personally I've read everything of Ayn's works that I could get my hands on. She was a remarkable thinker and a great devotee of reality and reason.

Having said that, she was also an advocate of science. The further that science has progressed from 1973 the more that we have learned about early developing life.

Ayn's advocacy of "tabula rasa" as how babies come into this world is being proven wrong scientifically.

In addition, many women who have had abortions have faced the emotional turmoil of the positives and negatives of such decisions and have had second thoughts about their actions. Sometimes hindsight is 20-20. Don't ignore those who have regrets. They have much to teach.

My suggestion is:
1) Follow the science when making new laws.
2) Tell her the truth and then let her decide.

It's ultimately up to the woman.

Not enough of her books. And I don't know her opinions on such things.

BUT the abortion issue is complicated as I posted elsewhere. Until we prosecute EVERY miscarriage as manslaughter, we are NOT on solid ground illegalizing it. Nature does NOT have a 100% success rate after conception. So, IMHO, that can NEVER be the line in the sand.

On the other hand, once the baby is truly viable outside the womb, we have issues. And my personal favorite is/was brainwave activity that we can easily confirm means we have an individual. (But I am ALL About Arguing out where I will learn and move. It took me 30yrs to get to that point).

Agree with her on abortion and big business is unavoidable in a free enterprise society. I neither like nor dislike it.