Seeker of Truth

This is one of my favorite movies. Also, I played Maria in a stage production of the story. It gives you a different perspective on how difficult a role it is to play. My deepest respect goes to Julie Andrews and her talent.

Again, if the woman makes her relationship choices rationally, this shouldn't even be an issue she would have to deal with. She would choose a man that did not want children. Same thing for a man that makes rational choices in his relationships.

Thank you for all the reponses. As I said, I am learning about Objectivism, so let me give my own personal code of ethics for the situation I have brought up. First of all, in any romantic relationship that I choose to engage in, I make sure that my partner understands that having children is not something that I personally want for my life. Therefore, my partner must share this same value. Second, because having children is not something that I plan to do, I have always used the proper means to prevent a pregnancy from happening. But I wonder about women who constantly get pregnant, and constantly get abortions. Is their behavior rational? Pregnancy is certainly not the only purpose of sex, but a rational person understands that pregnancy is a possible consequence of sex, and therefore, if they do not want children, they should take the proper precautions to prevent pregnancy. I understand. Nature dictates that the woman carries the fetus. What is is what is, and we must base our morals on those facts. However, is not the man in this situation being punished for something he has no control over? What if he would willingly carry the fetus himself, but since that is not possible, he would take care of the woman, her medical bills, etc. until she gave birth? If he is willing to do all of this, why should he be denied something that he will value for the rest of his life?

I gave it a 10. I love Monty Python. My favorite dialogue is from Life of Brian. Reg: "What's the point of his fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?" Francis: "It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression." Reg: "It's symbolic of his struggle against reality."

First of all, I have been a member here for a while, but have refrained from posting, taking the time to learn before I pose a question. For the most part, the Objectivist reasoning for abortion being the woman's choice makes sense to me. There is only one fault that I find with it. If both a man and a woman willingly engage in sexual intercourse, knowing that a pregnancy could possibly result from these actions, why is the choice of whether to abort or not entirely the woman's? Here is how I see it. If both the woman and the man decide to abort, or if both the woman and the man decide they want to keep and raise the future child, there is no problem. If the woman wants to keep and raise the future child but the man does not, again, I see no problem. Both parties involved are free to make their own choice. But what if the man wants to keep the and raise the future child, and the woman does not? Why does her choice come before his? Why does she have more rights than the man? Since both the man and the woman knew the possible consequences of intercourse, they should have equal rights in the potential life that was created. Am I missing something besides the fact that the by the law of nature, the woman carries the fetus? I don't think it is moral to force a woman to carry a fetus if she does not want to. It is her body. But it also does not seem moral to deny the man the rights to the potential child, if he wants to raise the child on his own.

Yes, Atlas Shrugged is next on my list.

Interesting. I look at it like this: As a woman, it is my greatest wish for my man to conquer me. In conquering me, he has proved his worthiness. In his desire to conquer me, he has proved to me that he finds me worthy.

This is an interesting question, because I feel more alone for the most part being among other people than I do being by myself. No matter how much of an individual you might be, there is still some part of you that will conform to the masses when among them. So maybe that is how you deal with it? Realizing that when you are alone, you can be your essential self, be foolish without consequences or judgements. Nothing better than spending time with just yourself, to reflect on the idiocy of mankind and be thankful you are not part of it.

Hello. I have often been told that I have an Objectivist philosophy on life. I am new to Ayn Rand and her philosophy on some levels, but not new on others. I have never read any of her works directly, but I am familiar with her ideas through other interests of mine. I have currently begun reading The Fountainhead and I must admit, I am having a hard time getting into it, I think mostly because of the type of story it is. I tend to gravitate towards science fiction and fantasy novels. Anyway, I just wanted to introduce myself. I am here to learn more about Objectivism, ask rational questions to the best of my ability, throw in some humor here and there, and perhaps make some like-minded friends. Cheers!