Appropriating as your username the full name of a fictional person with whom you obviously disagree.

John Galt didn't have to abandon the generator to avoid the looters having it. Indeed, by abandoning it he left it in the possession of the looters (i.e. the communist heirs of Twentieth Century Motors), knowing they would be unable to use it. The reason he didn't announce the invention to the world was of course the one you describe, but not the reason he left the motor behind. If you hang your mouse over the question of "flag burning," it says specifically that the matter is whether it should be legally possible to burn the flag (i.e. an against position implies you favor a law forbidding it). I'll abandon the social security matter. I would argue the same point regarding an already-born child (unless there were a specific contract forbidding the matter; I'm not yet certain at what point a contract can be implied but certainly not at conception, because not only rape, but also fraudulent or failed birth control lead to no reasonable expectation of conception and thus no reasonable consequence. I'm not sure, by the way why you'd count non-rape incest as "not the consequence of your actions.") The relevant question here, however, is what John Galt would argue, and "I swear by my life and love of it that I will NEVER LIVE FOR THE SAKE OF ANOTHER MAN (implicitly woman, child, fetus, etc.)" makes quite clear his position on that issue. Or you could ask the author, who invented him, if she weren't dead she'd tell ya :D. What kind of Christianity are you advocating exactly that doesn't involve sacrifice? Christ kind of walked pretty willingly onto the cross, explicitly to save OTHERS from their sins. Or you can look at Galt's own condemnation the christian ethics: "Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accepts his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not. It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some explicable claim upon him - it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man. The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin. A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man's sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man's nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code. Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a 'tendency' to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free. What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge - he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil - he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor - he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire - he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness, joy - all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man's fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was - that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love - he was not man. Man's fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he's man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives. They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man." Add to this Galt's absolute reason-only epistemology and explanation of how you're "personal choice" is not an excuse for theology: "Reason does not work automatically; thinking is not a mechanical process; the connections of logic are not made by instinct. The function of your stomach, lungs or heart is automatic; the function of your mind is not. In any hour and issue of your life, you are free to think or to evade that effort. But you are not free to escape from your nature, from the fact that reason is your means of survival," and he would thus definitely disagree with your notion that your belief in God is "not a sacrifice." You might not be strictly dedicated but you agree somewhat- fine. But the proper John Galt was the essence of strict dedication to an ideal. You wanna mix Objectivism and Christianity? Call yourself Jesus Galt, the contradiction will then be your problem and no one else's.