Not sure what you're trying to say here...
You point out the absurdity of the comparison, then you ask me to consider the comparison again?
Get some sleep, then come back.
The point Rand is making is that she expects to have the ultimate choice of keeping, or killing, a baby and thus implies that all other women have the intelligence and discretion to make the proper choice. Whatever that may be.
Now, Rand is pointing out, if you are freely able to make that big of a choice without government telling you what you should, or should not, do should the government then interfere in telling you what toilet, lightbulb, washer, etc. you should buy?
If she doesn't want the government regulating a significant choice like an abortion then should the government regulate something so insignificant as what light bulbs you should buy?
Of course not. It's a ridiculous and most certainly does have ramifications on American consumers and the American lighting and appliance industries.
You're viewing Rand's statements as a comparison, in which case, yes, it would be an extreme one. But what I feel, only Rand could tell you for sure, he's trying to convey is that very extreme difference between the choices and how ridiculous it is that people of such influence are wasting their time on decisions and committees like these.
Now that is absurd.
Finally I'd note that he's trying to also tie in the point that every one should have as much choice as possible. By putting unnecessary impediments on the choices you have in the marketplace will only breed less competition, less happy consumers, higher prices, poorer items and more financial turmoil for both consumers and manufactures.
I guess it all comes down to how you perceive his arguments. Maybe he did word them poorly and most people didn't interrupt them the way I did. Either way on the core of the issue, regardless of what analogy he used, was bang on as usual.
