Stolyarov: 

"Do you see how infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential an Objectivist's stance on abortion is in evaluating his general adherence to the filosofy?"

These issues of personal liberty (abortion, suicide, prudishness, romantic relationships) are not merely superfluous window dressing that you can test your word games on. They are absolutely critical to the question of “who owns my life?” Indeed, these are more fundamental than issues such as taxation and small government. Objectivism builds capitalist politics on individualist ethics, not the other way around - your “innovative” authoritarian re-interpretation of the philosophy notwithstanding.

The fact that you have previously referred to abortion as a “holocaust” suggests either that you also take this issue very seriously (and that it’s not “infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential”) or that you are in the habit of flinging emotive, imprecise metaphors about.

Finally, the fact that you can reach such egregiously wrong conclusions on (what you consider) “infinitesimally peripheral and inconsequential” issues indicates that you could just as easily reach egregiously false conclusions on other issues that might not be so “infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential.” Your stance on marriage ultimately conceded positive rights to children. I’m sure no-one would consider the nature of rights to be “infinitesimally periferal and inconsequential” to Objectivism.