I will note that I don't think your statements reflect on my point, txa. That's to say, you're considering the philosophical underpinnings of the Little Sisters. I recognize that, but I should add that even more strongly than A. Ryan and Atlas, these underpinnings are a part of the setting, not the story, and thus not really relevant to how I considered the LSs so far.
Perhaps I would have been better saying "you can't be a little bit pregnant" than talking cannibal, since you are absolutely correct in what you are saying about 'shades of gray'. In a pregnancy analogy, it matters not how you get that way, through rape, incest, consensual, or whatever - you're pregnant. The point I was making was that there was almost a 'den' or 'hive' mentality presented for the Little Sisters. And in virtually all of those sorts of 'societies', if you are tainted in any way - be it a chick touched by a human, or whatever - you are completely rejected forever and absolutely.
What, the LSs are?
And Yes, the Ayn Rand thing is so patently obvious (to the shape and name of Atlas, even) that I didn't think it worth mentioning. We were talking Little Sisters and where they fall in terms of importance and I was stating that part of our disagreement was you see them as a non-entity and I see them as a very important part.
Hold on there, I never stated nor do I think they are a non-entity in the setting. I simply consider that a seperate subject (see above).
Besides, you stated they were most important, and that's just patently incorrect. They're not "practically the very core", once you ignore the emotional impact they're peripheral, though obviously they're a centrifugal force in the setting itself (y'know, what with the Adam and all), but not more so than Ryan or the smugglers.
I was saying that I thought that the dystopian destruction of the fundamental unit of human existence - the family unit - was a central part of the story as well. I found it beyond the equivalent of Doom's monster closet - a cheap device - which seems to be your basic opinion. And that is how I see there to be a 'struggle' between the PC and 'society' - because the player is at once part of that world and apart from it, representing the forces of freedom and oppression all at once. Of course ... later in the game it is just about killin' stuff, but that was how the setup worked for me. Perhaps it is, as Stanza says, that I bought into the narrative more fully - and perhaps it is because the Little Sister thing played me like a fiddle regardless of the obvious intent.
But aside from that, I believe my thoughts on the Little Sisters tie in with the whole Rand thing because of the fall of Ryan's society - people there are encouraged to 'better themselves' and pursue self-interest without constraints or ethics and so on. Yet the very notion of family itself contains a great degree of conflict between selfishness and selflessness. The idea of sacrificing children to further the selfish ideals of the society plays further into the whole central theme of the inherent conflict of freedom you mention.
I think your latter point is correct, the former isn't, or only partially. I think the abuse of children hammers home the point of the self-destructive nature of Ryan's view of humanity (or the humane flaws in it, whichever way you want to put it), but I don't think that's a central philosophical point.
But when you consider it from Rand's point of view, it has a simply source in the fact that there should be no limitation to the greatness of man, including morality. But that doesn't mean you should consider the LSs from the viewpoint of our standard morality (nor in terms of "selfishness", which is not directly relevant, I'd say), but rather as an extreme exponent of the fact that there are no limitations to the Atlasian morality of BioShock itself. I think one reviewer compared it to Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment, and he was right inasfar as the LSs represent an extreme of greatness over any form of morality. I think we're agreed on that point, we just diverge in that you continue down Raskolnikov's paths to redemption, while I don't consider the possibility of redemption or the moral implications the key point that Rapture is trying to express. I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree on that, at least if my interpretation is right and I'm not misrepresenting your point.
Though I would like to clarify one step further, in that I think that the LSs and BDs are a kind of hybrid of the above point of "no boundaries set by morality" and by a reflection of total lack of empowerment that is inherent of children switched to the near invincible status of the LSs and, more importantly, the empowerment given to them by the presence of the Big Daddies. So on top of the ignoring of morality, I'd say that in Rapture's world the LSs represents a change from lack of empowerment to insane empowerment just as much as the splicers do. And that, in my opinion, changes the whole view of 'em.
I think.