Catherine

100+ years? It's taken far less than a century to get as far as we have, and that's with our current technology. And by the way: what is your standard? Because to me, a woman is distinguished from a man by: a) her reproductive organs her hormones, how they function differently from a male's (psychology) and c) her behaviors (anywhere from peeing sitting down to getting out of a car without showing anything under your skirt). Your answer has only assumed that sexual transformation is impossible, which I think is ignoring how far science has come in even the past couple of decades.

No, I think you're misusing the word "superficial". You haven't offered any evidence that it is, except to say that the current medical procedures are "crude at best". There are women AND men who aren't "fully functional" - and yet are still, for all practical purposes, "male" or "female". I suggest you ask a transsexual, or listen to a radio broadcast/television interview. I doubt any of them will call the process "superficial". While it hasn't been perfected, the medical procedures that currently exist are still pretty advanced - transsexual women still can achieve orgasm, etcetera. They may not be able to reproduce, or nurse their children, but a ) certain women NEVER will and b ) I doubt that it will be impossible for scientists to figure out how to enable transsexual men to. Whether we cannot RIGHT NOW is irrelevant to the morality of the subject - especially since medical professionals are nearing a point when people CAN change their sexual identity completely. The discussion here is: if it were possible for a person to undergo a sex change, could they change their sexual identity and still be fully happy? and is a person's "self" defined by what they are born with?

What do you mean by this? Not only is it possible to switch your reproductive organs, but there are also mental and hormonal therapies available to men/women who undergo transsexual surgeries. Are you suggesting that your only true "self" is the self you are born with? Because at this point in time, it IS possible to both physically and mentally change your sex. I'm not sure how you're using "superficial" here. Again, if you change your "self" - biologically and mentally - how is it a denial of self? Homosexuality is a denial of what our reproductive organs are designed for, and what our physical/mental needs are as men and women. Transgenderism is BECOMING someone of the opposite sex. I would agree that transgenderism without sex change is a denial, but post-sex change operation, I would disagree.

Anti-homosexuality sentiment is NOT rooted in Christianity - it's rooted in Judaism. And I agree - I think "fear" is an inappropriate word in our discussion here. The fact that ancient Greeks were homosexual does not make it objectively moral. I'm sure there are multiple topics on this forum that would address this, so I won't bother. * As for transgenderism, I think the term "mutilation" is also inappropriate. I don't see what about the procedure separates it from cosmetic surgeries such as rhinoplasty or breast augmentation, or from a procedure like an appendectomy. I think they are completely two separate issues! One deals with a man sleeping with a man (or woman/woman), and the other deals with someone biologically changing their sex. How are they at all the same? If someone becomes a biological woman, in what way would it be immoral for her to sleep with a man? I think the fundamental question surrounding this issue is: should people be allowed to change what their genes determined? I agree with the Objectivist principle that homosexuality is a denial of self, but I don't see how changing your sex is (especially since transgenders DO go through therapy to become their new, respective sex in both body & mind). Perhaps Inspector has a comment on this?

I ended up seeing the movie, and agree! The acting was great, and I loved the cinematography (especially for the scene on the beach during the war). Otherwise, the book was better. As for why I found it disgusting, I found that

Having searched through the other threads myself, I haven't found any post that directly addresses this (or where everyone reaches one conclusion). My personal response to this would be that this statement is inaccurate - and that I, and other members on this board, HAVE found a single person that fulfills all of our needs (intellectually, sexually, etc). I don't think anyone here considers polyamory disgusting - the debate is whether polygamy is a moral ideal (or, alternatively, monogamy). The Objectivist position is that one is [objectively] better than the other. Is it better to have multiple partners to fulfill your desires, or one person?

Sorry, perhaps I should've explained, but maturity is exactly right. I realize that these beliefs are mostly associated with religion, but regardless, I think if someone is mature enough to have sex, they're mature enough to think for themselves. While I understand your point, we've already established that the original mother doesn't have to raise the child. I don't really see this as relevant to whether or not abortion is a violation of human rights, because mothers who actually GIVE birth may still not be equipped to take care of their child, and killing their child would not be morally responsible. So it seems that we both agree on this point, but it's still lacking specifics. When would it be okay, and when would it be immoral, for a woman to have an abortion (and why?). If a fetus were not a specifically human life, wouldn't this be a moot point?

Back in my sophomore year of high school, Imagine was one of my absolute favorite songs; now, however, I would say it's one of my least favorite Beatles songs (for obvious reasons). I don't think the Beatles were very musically accomplished - although they tended to be good poets, sometimes. As for my favorite Beatles songs, I love Here Comes the Sun, Hey Jude, Back in the USSR, ah... I can't list all of them.

Hm there is a difference between "facing consequences" and being "held responsible" for them. I'm asking why abortion is a responsible choice at all (I can only see it as such when a) a woman and man have taken proper preventative measures or if the woman was raped). It has always been of some comfort to me to acknowledge that abortions ARE serious choices made by women and their doctors (not just last-minute solutions), but just because someone broods over something doesn't necessarily mean their decision is morally right. A baby's ideal diet is still extremely selective... they can only eat certain foods, served in certain manners... I would venture to say that caring for a born baby requires more attention than caring for a fetus. And, again, I don't really see as only it's mother being able to care for it as a valid point for denying a fetus a chance at life if the mother took the risk of becoming impregnated in the first place. I guess I just don't see how these technicalities are relevant? Hm, in the case of a miscarried fetus, it wouldn't be relevant. Actually, I don't think any of these would be very relevant. These babies would never have the ability to exercise human rights, and would probably die prematurely from other (predictable) complications. And regardless, they are uniquely human fetuses. My stance has always been yours: "abortion should be used as a last resort only". Abortion is never good for a woman anyway (neither is the morning after pill, although I'll admit, I have used it in emergency). I'm really just trying to reason out what a legitimate reason for a woman to have an abortion is. If giving birth threatens the mother's life, I would DEFINITELY agree that the mother has every right to choose to abort the fetus. I guess I have a hard time admitting that a potential human is so easily disposable as someone being, say, financially unstable or embarrassed, especially when there are people willing to even pay the medical expenses for a baby, and when people who are embarrassed of pregnancy should not be having sex anyway (rape, of course, being the exception).

Agreed - if you search the forums, you will find a more elaborate answer to this question. But for a shortened version: Ayn Rand says that the abortion debate is really only applicable to the first trimester, since that is pretty much the only time during which legal abortions are administered, and there is a large difference between a fetus in the first trimester and one that is merely a few weeks away from birth. I would agree with Andre's answer on this. How is the parasitic lifestyle of a fetus any different from that of a baby's? Neither can survive without specific attention from a parent. A baby cannot provide its own food, nor can it shelter itself.

I have never been clear on the issue of abortion anyway, as even a baby cannot technically "live" on its own either; its style of life is still parasitic, to some extent. Not only that, a woman chooses the risk of becoming pregnant by having sex, except in the case of rape (and, say, a broken condom, etc.); I don't see why she shouldn't be held responsible for her actions. At this point, I still consider myself pro-abortion (at least in the early stages of pregnancy, which is pretty much the only time it is safe for a mother), but I want clear answers from supporters. I have a hard time seing a fetus as nothing more than a cluster of cells/tissues; as far as I know, a fetus can ONLY become human. It may be in the same league as a cancer, but a cancer cannot develop into a conscious being.

Of course there's a difference between an animal and a human baby! Babies have the potential to reason, they simply haven't developed matured reasoning skills. An individual animal does not have that potential. I always run into people who are confused on this point. I don't think that rationality gives one the right to life - I think the ability to reason gives us the right to life. That said, I agree with both what DarkWaters says - a couple who makes the conscious decision to have a child has the responsibility to raise the child until he/she can care for himself. I also have to agree with David, especially as it applies to old people. You don't choose your parents - you aren't required to take care of them when they get older. They should be allowed the right to earn enough money throughout their lifetime to retire into a special home for elderly care, but they aren't entitled to their children's time.