>>>Either way--it’s none of your business because it’s not your Inn.

Congratulations. Silly argument. It's also none of my business if a hotel manager in Akron, Ohio decides to machine gun his guests to death because he wants to convert his property to a parking lot; and it's also none of my business if an NHS Trust in the UK involuntarily euthanizes its elderly patients in order to free up some beds for younger, non-retired, taxpaying patients. Nevertheless, I'd write a concerned letter to my local newspaper.

Anyway, it is the fetus's business because it's the one getting its head vacuumed off its spine. In place of writing a letter to my local paper, I'm posting here. You don't mind, I hope.

Cool. So I have your authorization to butcher illegal aliens?

We all know I can be graphic... anyone want me to describe the "eviction" procedure? Hmm?

>>>if there is a child sitting at my feet and I have plenty of food and I do not feed her, and she starves to death because of this, I am not committing murder.

If it's your child, and you intentionally withhold food from her, you most certainly are committing murder. And any jury in this country would justly find you guilty.

>>>My duty is first and foremost to myself.

The concept of "myself" includes obligations and responsibilities you have incurred as a result of your own actions. The ancillary idea of "owning myself" obviously means that you, and you alone, are responsible for your voluntarily chosen actions: if you "own" yourself, then you "own" the responsibilities that are the effects of your own first cause.

" if there is a child sitting at my feet and I have plenty of food and I do not feed her, and she starves to death because of this, I am not committing murder. Even if I have fed her in the past. "

Tell that to the police. Unlike a child trapped in your womb, the child has at least a chance of escaping your presence to seek food. The child sitting at your feet is also not necessarily there because you created it.

"Turning women into slaves"???
Aw, c'mon! RAPE IS ILLEGAL.

This is why I dislike libertarianism. It mistakes liberty for license. I didn't shove a baby inside you and say, "support that!" You either chose to flop on your back, or you were raped. The punishment for rape for the *other* victim, per your philosophy, is death by torture. The punishment for flopping on your back for someone with whom you didn't intend making a baby is, again per your philosophy, death by torture for the baby thus created.

If you own yourself, then the baby owns his/herself. The difference is, s/he didn't do anything to end up in the condition s/he finds his/herself, whether it was bumping uglies voluntarily, or walking down a dark alley unarmed, dressed like a prostitute.

The baby shouldn't pay the price of your inability to recognize what your reproductive system is for.

If women can't behave responsibly with their bodies, then someone needs to take responsibility for them... gee, maybe them there Victorians weren't so dumb.

I dunno from "natural rights". There are no rights save those which come from God. And if you have rights, so does a helpless, funny-looking, inconvenient "oneself" which *you* created.

And you people condemned ME for hyperbolically referencing the anal rape of 2 year old children, yet you advocate the brutal murder of unborn children.

THIS is what reveals Objectivists to be the selfish, self-centered, ego-centric, megalomaniacal creatures they're depicted as.

>>>if she was conscious of the fact she invited the guest.

If she were conscious . . . ?

In other words, in the case of a "virgin birth," it's OK to abort. I see.

However, in all other cases, sex *can* and *might* lead to pregnancy, even if unwanted. The subjective emotion of "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect of an action is irrelevant to the moral principle of self-ownership, self-responsibility, and self-reliance: the "self" that causes something, is responsible for its own effects. In the case of an action (sex) leading to an effect (pregnancy), "wanting" or "not wanting" the effect is irrelevant to the logic of the moral argument: there is still a moral responsibility entailed by causing an effect.

>>>you may as well say that she chose to live in an area where her "home" has a higher probability of some one breaking into it. (This is the part of the analogy symbolizing unwanted pregnancy.)

An inapt analogy. That's actually the part of the analogy that illustrates the issue of rape leading to pregnancy (i.e., someone forcibly breaking into the inn).

No, the part of the analogy symbolizing "unwanted pregnancy" IS RAPE. You invite the penis is, you invite the inhabitants in.

You do realize the D.A. would almost certainly disagree that she can kick someone who is no threat out of her house if it means certain death?

There's no screwing followed by unwanted pregnancy. If you don't want a baby, do not perform the actions whose function is the creation of a baby.

So a creator has no responsibility toward her creation? I begin to understand why Objectivists *really* want to believe there's no God.