Abortion

[EC]

Rand argues for the primacy of Reason as the guiding principle of life. Rationality is antithesis to emotionalism. Reason is antithesis to emotion. Hence the request for logical thought, critical reasoning, and the avoidance of emotion.

I would appreciate comments directly tied to the quotes of Rand's work, and my process of thought. I have taken the time to find appropriate quotes from Rand's philosophy (not the Lexicon) to support my argument, and reasoned through to the logical end. Please do the same in return, providing your process of thought and supporting quotes from Rand's works rather than an unsupported conclusion.

As for as Objectivism's view of emotion see this http://aynrandlexicon.org/lexicon/emotions.html

As for abortion see this http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1382 and this http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=1602 as well as the entries for "abortion" at the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

[Breschau]

EC: note the huge difference between the Emotions article and the Abortion article. In Emotions, there is a reasoned explanation of what things are from an Objectivist perspective. In Abortion, there is a set of commandments, with no argument or discussion as to how the conclusions were reached, simply the conclusions themselves. That makes me suspicious as I remember lines from The Virtue of Selfishness to the effect of "commandments require that you submit your reason to another." I will find the exact quote.

Everyone: As a request, can we please stay on the topic of Objectivism and Abortion. As a process to understand Objectivism better, I would prefer quotes from Rand that support any claim you make, coupled with a reasonable presentation of an argument (or counter-argument) by you. If you find flaw in my arguments, say so, but also include a reasoned argument as to why, and give specific examples from Rand's work that shows why. And no, saying that the Lexicon article on Abortion is correct because it's a Ayn Rand's Lexicon article on Abortion doesn't count. I want real philosophical discussion here.

Appeals to authority and other fallacies are not welcome. "Because Ayn Rand said so," isn't good enough. I want her actual words. I want those words integrated into an argument that either show how I'm wrong, or a counter-argument as to why the conclusions presented in the Abortion article are correct.

My thesis is that the Abortion article is contradicted by the quotes I presented from Rand's philosophy. If you think I'm wrong, don't tell me, show me. With quotes, reason, and logic.

[~Sophia~]

That is where my confusion comes in. Considering the actual harm that is caused to the mother (enduring the procedure) and the risks of complication, the procedure is detrimental to the mother's well-being. Life is value. Saving the life of the mother is necessary.

Abortion is not automatically detrimental to woman's life (especially these days - today for many it will lie in the sphere of having to endure momentary discomfort: physical and mental) and even if it was the decision to take a risk (risk is not a given outcome but a potential) or not belongs to that woman.

However, an abortion for anything short of that (aborting to avoid financial hardship, etc) is unnecessary, i.e. it doesn't positively affect the survival or well-being of the mother, and therefore, according to Rand, that abortion is a whim.

And also according to Rand, one should not trade a value for a lesser value. To me that includes things like extreme sports (the temporary thrill traded for the risk of ending life), and an unnecessary abortion (the trading of a whim for the harm to the mother).

But becoming responsible for the life of another human being (in contrast to only being responsible for your own life) affects mother's life in a very profound way. I think the key omission in your argument is the fact that the purpose of morality is not just to help you stay alive. It is achieving a specific kind of life - it is a flourishing life which is the goal. Some values are not optional but some are. Thus what this means will differ from person to person - meaning that from all of the available moral optional choices each person will pick what is specifically proper for them to pursue. A risky action can lie in the sphere of moral action for a particual person in a particular context.

Edited June 26, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[DavidOdden]

The philosophy definition of the Other is : that which is distinct from, different from, or opposite something or oneself.

The problem is that this is false (or inapplicable). That is not what "other" means. I suggest starting from that mistake. Remember that Objectivism does not automaticlly accept redefinitions of words at the hands of Kantians and lit-crit types. We don't have a word "othering". So "others" in that quote about rights means "other persons".

[TheEgoist]

I think your question is sufficiently similar to the last quoted post here, so I'll attempt to answer you below.

I know of no right, only the natural biological necessity.

From Rand

The biological function of pregnancy is reality.

Except in the case of rape (which includes incest) the mother's consent was given to the act of conception.

Pregnancy is not a necessary effect of sex. If I don't feel like getting a vasectomy, or if the girl doesn't feel like taking the pill or getting her tubes tied we shouldn't have to worry about the consequences when we can easily get rid of them. You aren't consenting to a child in you when you have sex...You consent to something being inside you during sex ( Excuse the crude pun ) but it's not a child.

[~Sophia~]

If I don't feel like getting a vasectomy, or if the girl doesn't feel like taking the pill or getting her tubes tied we shouldn't have to worry about the consequences when we can easily get rid of them.

Using abortions as a form of contraception when other, safer methods, are objectively within your reach is not a rational choice.

[TheEgoist]

That doesn't change the fact someone should be allowed to do it.

Also, what if the other contraception failed?

[Breschau]

Abortion is not automatically detrimental to woman's life (especially these days - today for many it will lie in the sphere of having to endure momentary discomfort: physical and mental) and even if it was the decision to take a risk (risk is not a given outcome but a potential) or not belongs to that woman.

No it is not detrimental to a woman's life. That was not my claim. My claim was that it affected her well-being. That "having to endure momentary discomfort: physical and mental" which you mentioned.

But becoming responsible for the life of another human being (in contrast to only being responsible for your own life) affects mother's life in a very profound way. I think the key omission in your argument is the fact that the purpose of morality is not just to help you stay alive. It is achieving a specific kind of life - it is a flourishing life which is the goal. Some values are not optional but some are. Thus what this means will differ from person to person - meaning that from all of the available moral optional choices each person will pick what is specifically proper for them to pursue. A risky action can lie in the sphere of moral action for a particual person in a particular context.

I am a father. The mother isn't the only person responsible for the life of the child. It is a profound change of lifestyle, that is true. The issue isn't morality in general but the claims of Objectivist morality. Life is the only value. The selfish pursuit of that value the only good. Risk is a potential, not a certainty. However, according to Rand, that very risk taking is potentially a trade of value for whim as in

Selfishness entails: a) a hierarchy of values set by the standard of one's self-interest, and b ) the refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one or a nonvalue.

So, it is that self-same potential of risk (and potential of sacrifice) that would go against being rationally selfish, which is Objectivism.

The problem is that this is false (or inapplicable). That is not what "other" means. I suggest starting from that mistake. Remember that Objectivism does not automaticlly accept redefinitions of words at the hands of Kantians and lit-crit types. We don't have a word "othering". So "others" in that quote about rights means "other persons".

Even if my definition is off, the result is the same. It isn't until the child is born that it meets the "other person" standard, according to the Abortion article. That assumption still yields that the child is part of the mother until birth. That doesn't derail the rest of the argument.

Pregnancy is not a necessary effect of sex. If I don't feel like getting a vasectomy, or if the girl doesn't feel like taking the pill or getting her tubes tied we shouldn't have to worry about the consequences when we can easily get rid of them. You aren't consenting to a child in you when you have sex...You consent to something being inside you during sex ( Excuse the crude pun ) but it's not a child.

No, it is not a necessary result, but it is an implied risk. Choice and consent are the key. You choose not to get a vasectomy. She chooses not to take the pill, chooses not to use a IUD, and chooses not to have her tubes tied. When you choose to consent to the sex, you also choose to consent to the consequences. Even potential ones. You can't go to Vegas and lose your money, only to ask for it back.

From Rand...

The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it...

As a rational man, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Even the potential consequences.

[TheEgoist]

No, it is not a necessary result, but it is an implied risk. Choice and consent are the key. You choose not to get a vasectomy. She chooses not to take the pill, chooses not to use a IUD, and chooses not to have her tubes tied. When you choose to consent to the sex, you also choose to consent to the consequences. Even potential ones. You can't go to Vegas and lose your money, only to ask for it back.

From Rand...

As a rational man, you must accept the consequences of your actions. Even the potential consequences.

You can argue this from a moral standpoint, once again, but not from a legal one.

Not everything that is immoral should be against the law. You aren't infringing on anyone's rights by having an abortion.

Furthermore, someone shouldn't feel guilty for getting rid of a child that they do not want.

If you are professional dirt biker, there's a chance you could break your leg. You accept that you may get the broken leg, but you also realize if you get the broken leg you should get it treated as soon as possible.

[softwareNerd]

Breschau,

If I understand your argument about risk, you're saying since there is a finite risk of death in undergoing an abortion it is not worth it. However, if we eliminate finite risks from our lives, we'd have to sit at home as much as we can, somewhere where there are no flood, hurricane, etc. risks.

If the risk of death is really substantial in a particular woman's case, why would someone advise her to risk death?

Or, are you saying that the risks are somewhere between small-but-finite and substantial... i.e. some middle ground? Are you making some assertion about the risks of abortion, compared to other medical procedures like (say) removal of a faulty slipped-disk?

[~Sophia~]

No it is not detrimental to a woman's life. That was not my claim. My claim was that it affected her well-being. That "having to endure momentary discomfort: physical and mental" which you mentioned.

When Objectivism considers well-being it is long term well being (same thing with happiness - it is long term happiness not just momentary emotion). Momentary discomfort such as the one comming from a vigorous excercise, for example, can be a means of securing, protecting, maintaing a value.

The issue isn't morality in general but the claims of Objectivist morality. Life is the only value. The selfish pursuit of that value the only good.

We are discussing Objectivist morality (or rational morality). Life is not an intrinsic value. I want to stress this point again (it is an important one) that the maintenance of existance regardless of the conditions of that existance is not the standard. The goal is a a specific, flourishing (long term happy with rationality as an implied method of achieving it) existance. Yes you have to stay alive in order to be anything (it is the basic requirement) but the goal is not any kind of life but a specific kind of life.

Risk is a potential, not a certainty. However, according to Rand, that very risk taking is potentially a trade of value for whim as in

Selfishness entails: a) a hierarchy of values set by the standard of one's self-interest, and b ) the refusal to sacrifice a higher value to a lower one or a nonvalue.

So, it is that self-same potential of risk (and potential of sacrifice) that would go against being rationally selfish, which is Objectivism.

Your conclusion does not follow from that quote. It maybe in one's best rational self interest (crucial to one's flourishing) to never become a parent and thus taking some risk one is objectively judging one can afford, in their particual context, to prevent that from happening would be moral. It would precisely be a refusal to sacrifice a higher value (one's life without the burden of parenting) to a momentary discomfort (lower value).

Edited June 26, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[FeatherFall]

Welcome, Breschau. I see from the other thread that you're new here.

First we need to pin down what we are talking about when we use the word, "Rights".

"Abortion is a moral right." According to Rand, through the above quoted poster's filter, "Objectivism holds that a man has one fundamental right: a man's right to his own life." These are in obvious conflict.

These quotes actually do not contradict each other. That man's fundamental right is to his own life is true; all other rights are derived from it, including the rights to property, free speech and what to do with one's body. I'll address these derived rights in the context of abortion before getting to why fetuses don't have them.

Rights are moral principles that sanction action in a social context. They come from the fact that each human must use his mind to promote his only intrinsic value; his life. In order to do this his mind must be free from the corrupting influence of force and fraud imposed by other men. For his rights to be valid, he must also recognize other's rights. Therefore, rights are the reason man needs laws. But there is another part of moral judgment that has nothing to do with rights or the law. This is something to consider when reading some of my replies to the following quotes.

The article goes through the trouble of stating the same thing essentially, in four ways, just to be sure. Yet, some of these have negative consequences from an Objectivist point-of-view.

"An embryo has no rights." Until the moment of birth, a child is considered an embryo. So the mother could abort 5 minutes before birth, if she so chose.

A woman who waited until she was in labor to abort may be subject to moral condemnation. However, if fetuses don't have rights, this is not an argument for legally prohibiting such abortions.

As the embryo has no rights, there would be no crime in a third party killing an unborn child, other than assault.

A potential life destroyed is an actual value lost to an hopeful mother. Therefore it may be appropriate for the law to provide for harsher penalties or to consider such an assault a different type of crime. It would not be appropriate to consider such an assault murder.

"A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born." This is a restatement of the preceding, and a clarification. But, if the mother dies in childbirth, before the infant is born, there is no moral obligation to save the child.

While there is no legal or moral obligation to save the fetus after its mother dies, that doesn't mean that saving it isn't the right thing to do.

"The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." This one threw me. I take precedence over any of my (and your descendants). If we destroy the ecosystem, it's OK, because we've no moral obligation to leave them anything

I'm surprised this threw you. You have rights, which don't apply to the non-existent, and therefore you take precedence. This is not an argument for the irresponsible use of resources. In fact, bringing up the ecosystem seems to be way off topic.

"Rights do not pertain to potential, only actual beings." Well, other than the giant problems this gives corporations (which are considered people by the Supreme Court) it's irrelevant to us "actual beings."

While I can't comment on exactly how current governments deal with corporations, I do have some things to add. Corporations properly derive their rights from the individuals that comprise them. A corporate body in the process of forming has no rights until the individuals involved "give birth to it" by signing all of the necessary contracts.

The last part of your post conflates an embryo and its mother. You employ that error to try to show that harm to an embryo is always harm to the mother. This is the wrong way of looking at it. The fetus/mother relationship is more akin to that of a parasite/host. While one may live inside the other as a dependant, the two are clearly different entities. The zygote/embryo/fetus is an entity that, by its nature, can't act independently to pursue its goals; it is wholly dependent on its host. The only rights that govern it are derived from the host. Once it is a separate being, capable of independent action, its mother assumes legal responsibility for it until it is capable of independent survival.

[Breschau]

You can argue this from a moral standpoint, once again, but not from a legal one.

Not everything that is immoral should be against the law.

I'm not on a law forum. I'm not talking about legality, but morality. As you say, some immoral things are legal.

A pregnancy is not akin to an injured leg. The potential for consequences, given all reasonable safety precautions may be the same. But, an injury has a negative impact on your well-being. Having an unnecessary operation on a whim has a negative impact on you well-being. Intentionally going against your own well-being is a sign of mental illness, as I showed above.

A potential consequence of biking is injury. A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy. Accepting the responsibility for that injury (and being rational) would mean you'd repair the injury. Accepting the responsibility for that pregnancy (and being rational) would mean raising the child (or adopting it out), not paying someone to "get rid of it".

If I understand your argument about risk, you're saying since there is a finite risk of death in undergoing an abortion it is not worth it. However, if we eliminate finite risks from our lives, we'd have to sit at home as much as we can, somewhere where there are no flood, hurricane, etc. risks.

The point is that however low the risk is, you have to accept the consequences of your actions. That doesn't start with the abortion, but with the sex, as I stated in a previous post. It also applies to every other choice you make in life. That doesn't mean you should never leave your home, but when the potential consequences are greater, when you choose to engage in risk behavior, you can't avoid the consequences.

[FeatherFall]

I can see Sophia disagrees with my use of 'intrinsic value'. I took it to mean something like "end in its self". In that sense, each living being derives its values from its own life.

Life is not an intrinsic value. I want to stress this point again (it is an important one) that the maintenance of existance regardless of the conditions of that existance is not the standard. The goal is a a specific, flourishing (long term happy with rationality as an implied method of achieving it) existance. Yes you have to stay alive in order to be anything (it is the basic requirement) but the goal is not any kind of life but a specific kind of life.

I agree that man must seek a specific kind of life, but I don't see that as a conflict with the idea that his primary value is an intrinsic value. Can you elaborate, Sophia?

[softwareNerd]

The point is that however low the risk is, you have to accept the consequences of your actions. That doesn't start with the abortion, but with the sex, as I stated in a previous post. It also applies to every other choice you make in life. That doesn't mean you should never leave your home, but when the potential consequences are greater, when you choose to engage in risk behavior, you can't avoid the consequences.

I think we should all agree that rational people advise others to use contraception rather than to say "to hell with it, I'll simply abort". In other words, nobody is advising risky behavior.

However, if one engages in risky behavior, it does not follow that one should simply accept the consequences. For instance, you speak of some type of thrill-seeking sport. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the context is such that this particular sport is extremely risky for this particular individual, and any rational person would advise him not to do it. He engages in it anyway, and breaks a leg. Should he now simply accept that he has a broken leg? No, of course not: he should fix it.

I do not see why anyone should accept his condition just because he himself caused it. In principle, your advice boils down to saying: if you made a mistake, do not rectify it... simply accept it as a punishment. That is far from rational advice.

Edited June 26, 2008 by softwareNerd

[FeatherFall]

A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy. Accepting the responsibility for that injury (and being rational) would mean you'd repair the injury. Accepting the responsibility for that pregnancy (and being rational) would mean raising the child (or adopting it out), not paying someone to "get rid of it".

In your opinion, where does this moral obligation begin? The moment a zygote is formed?

[~Sophia~]

But, an injury has a negative impact on your well-being.

But pregnancy carries such a cost as well in terms of physical, often irreversable changes to one's body.

A potential consequence of biking is injury. A potential consequence of sex is pregnancy. Accepting the responsibility for that injury (and being rational) would mean you'd repair the injury.

Accepting the responsibility for that pregnancy (and being rational) would mean raising the child (or adopting it out), not paying someone to "get rid of it".

Unwanted pregnancy is a form of injury.

[JMeganSnow]

Life is the only value.

Life is the *ultimate* value, which is *not* the same thing.

When you choose to consent to the sex, you also choose to consent to the consequences. Even potential ones. You can't go to Vegas and lose your money, only to ask for it back.

Consenting to the consequences does not mean blindly or passively accepting them whatever they happen to be. If it did, then someone *choosing* to go outside at night and getting mugged would have no recourse other than to just accept it: they *chose* the consequences, even the *potential* ones. The result of this argument is not an assumption of responsibility, but the *negation* of responsibility and a passive resignation to whatever happens to happen.

Since it *is* possible for a woman to seek to change the circumstantial results of what may have even been an *intentional* decision (what if some poor girl decides to get pregnant and then her husband leaves her and she can no longer see a way to support herself effectively while saddled with a child?), why shouldn't she? Why should you refuse to pursue choices that are available to you *now* because of a choice you made previously in different circumstances?

The fact that you are a father doesn't change the metaphysical nature of women or of children. A man may be partially responsible for creating a fetus, but that fetus lives *inside* of a woman, and her body is *her exclusive property*. A man is not responsible *for* the fetus because he doesn't exercise any rights of ownership over her body. A woman may decide to consult a man about a pregnancy, but ultimately nothing matters other than her decision.

Read the rest of this thread (this 40+ PAGE thread) now that the merge has occured. Everything you've said has been said before by someone else.

[~Sophia~]

I can see Sophia disagrees with my use of 'intrinsic value'. I took it to mean something like "end in its self". In that sense, each living being derives its values from its own life.

I agree that man must seek a specific kind of life, but I don't see that as a conflict with the idea that his primary value is an intrinsic value. Can you elaborate, Sophia?

Life is an ultimate value (which is what I think you mean) - value which makes all other values possible but it is not an intrinsic value. Intrinsic value means good regardless of context (which would mean one should always pursue it) - it means regadless of what kind or for what purpose - it divorces the concept of good from beneficiaries. But notice that if conditions of existance are unbearable - life is no longer a value to the life-bearer. Thus what kind of life, it's conditions matter when evaluating life as value/good or not. Intrinsic value, in contrast, would mean always good, always a value.

Edited June 26, 2008 by ~Sophia~

[DavidOdden]

Even if my definition is off, the result is the same. It isn't until the child is born that it meets the "other person" standard, according to the Abortion article. That assumption still yields that the child is part of the mother until birth. That doesn't derail the rest of the argument.

Now let's look at what remains of your argument. You continued:

As the baby is indistinct from its mother, it is part of her, and is the mother in some sense, according to Rand, this would amount to the intent, or the " "want," in some sense" to harm herself.

That position reduces to the absurdity that getting a haircut is a sign of mental illness, as are removing a wart, fighting cancer or removing a gangrenous limb. Removing a part of one's body, especially a part in the womb that is very easily removed, can be necessary for the well-being of the whole body, which includes the mind. Harming the whole body for the sake of an unimportant part of the body is sign of mental illness.

When you choose to consent to the sex, you also choose to consent to the consequences. Even potential ones. You can't go to Vegas and lose your money, only to ask for it back.

By the nature of the gambler's agreement. There is no such agreement when it comes to sex, thus the consequence that has to be faced is getting an abortion, or giving birth. It is up to the woman to decide which she wants to do, according to her values.

[ruveyn ben yosef]

The point is that however low the risk is, you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

Not if you can avoid the consequences of your action.

One way of avoiding an unwanted pregnancy or childbirth is to terminate the pregnancy at an early stage before it becomes either a health hazard or a disruption to one's life.

Another was is to practice birth control.

And yet another way is not to have sexual relations.

A zygote or fetus has no rights that the gestating female is bound to respect, so disposing of said zygote or fetus does not constitute rights violation. From an ethical point of view such removal is not any different from removing a tumor (say).

ruveyn

Edited June 26, 2008 by ruveyn ben yosef

[Breschau]

While there is no legal or moral obligation to save the fetus after its mother dies, that doesn't mean that saving it isn't the right thing to do.

I'm going to stop right here. This is the crux of the argument. "The right thing to do" is defined as that which is moral. If an act is "the right thing to do" it is the moral thing to do. You are obligated to perform the moral. Therefore, you are morally obligated to save the child. But, it hasn't been born yet, so it has no rights and is not a man. If you are morally obligated to save the child in this circumstance, what has changed the child from a non-value, to a value. The only possible explanation is that it is not the birth of the child that makes it gain rights, but it's viability outside the womb. Though the mother may be dead, the child will survive, and must be saved. With the mother still alive, and the child viable outside the womb, then too the child must be saved.

The objective theory holds that the good is neither an attribute of “things in themselves” nor of man’s emotional states, but an evaluation of the facts of reality by man’s consciousness according to a rational standard of value. (Rational, in this context, means: derived from the facts of reality and validated by a process of reason.) The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man—and that it must be discovered, not invented, by man. Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit context-dropping or “concept-stealing”; it does not permit the separation of “value” from “purpose,” of the good from beneficiaries, and of man’s actions from reason.

So, for the child to have value, it must have purpose. If the child has value then it is good, and must be saved.

The last part of your post conflates an embryo and its mother. You employ that error to try to show that harm to an embryo is always harm to the mother. This is the wrong way of looking at it. The fetus/mother relationship is more akin to that of a parasite/host. While one may live inside the other as a dependant, the two are clearly different entities. The zygote/embryo/fetus is an entity that, by its nature, can't act independently to pursue its goals; it is wholly dependent on its host. The only rights that govern it are derived from the host. Once it is a separate being, capable of independent action, its mother assumes legal responsibility for it until it is capable of independent survival.

You start by arguing that the embryo is a separate being, and is essentially a parasite until it can sustain it's own life. But, that dependence continues to apply to born children, up till about 3-4 years old. So it's status as a parasite, and not a man with rights, would then continue until it is truly independent, i.e. can sustain it's own life. So a dependent child could equally be destroyed without issue.

There is nothing that fundamentally changes in the baby by being born. It passes through the birth canal, it's head is likely misshapen, to reform later, but nothing really changes in the child. That it passes through the birth canal is irrelevant too, as I'm sure a caesarean section counts. And as they are separate entities, it's not about spatial location. The crux then must be the viability of the embryo. The embryo is viable from about 5 months.

Not if you can avoid the consequences of your action.

The acceptance of full responsibility for one’s own choices and actions (and their consequences) is such a demanding moral discipline that many men seek to escape it...

Avoidance of the consequences of your actions is antithetical to Objectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Avoidance of the consequences of your actions is antithetical to Objectivism.

Breschau, That quote is from the anthology "Philosophy Who Needs it". I understood you to say, you had only read "The Fountainhead". What gives? It helps responders to know what Rand you have read, so that they can answer with reference to material you are familiar with.

With the above quote, you are misunderstanding the quote from Rand. She did not mean that one must accept the consequences for one's actions, only that one must accept responsibility for them.

Accepting responsibility also means one should take responsibility to undo any negative consequences of ones actions, or any consequences that one considers to be in error. Think about this: do you think Rand said that people should simply accept the consequences of their mistakes and errors?

[DavidOdden]

Avoidance of the consequences of your actions is antithetical to Objectivism.

"Ruveyn" isn't an Objectivist. You have choices with respect to the consequence of your actions: an abortion is one of them. That is what Objectivism holds.

[RationalBiker]

Avoidance of the consequences of your actions is antithetical to Objectivism.

This is similar to saying that if one smokes and gets cancer, then one must accept that they have cancer and just live with it rather than attempting to seek a treatment to get rid of the cancer. Pregnancy may result from sex, intended or otherwise, but a FULL TERM pregnancy is NOT necessarily a consequence of having sex. The woman accepts the responsibility and the consequences when she decides whether to abort or to have the baby. But accepting the consequences is not limited to the singular action of a full term pregnancy.