Abortion is not morally wrong until the fetus can survive outside the mother's body

Rationality is what separates man from beast. Rationality is the ability to make choices based on previous knowledge. Without it, we would be nothing more than empty husks, only perceiving the present moment. We would never be able to see beyond that; we would be drifting aimlessly in the wind. We would have no goals. All that would exist to us would be the now and the needs of the current moment. It is through rationality that man is allowed to exist at the level it does. If man were to choose to stop reasoning, he would surely die. Rationality is what separates good from bad, as it is what separates a higher level of life from death (in the sense of being either physically or mentally disabled). However, this does not mean that any actions taken with the intent of survival are moral. For example, killing a man and taking his food when he has not done anything to you is immoral. This is because you are infringing on that man's own right to rational action (which is fundamentally the same as the right to life). When dealing with things such as the right to rational action, you must acknowledge the right to property. Ownership of property exists because of human nature; without it, no choices could be made. If a choice was made, you are claiming ownership (or consent of the owner) of whatever that choice affects. You cannot make a choice in a void. A choice that does not affect anything else is not a choice. The very idea is a contradiction in terms. If property rights are ignored, no rational choices can be made. If rationality cannot be expressed, it is worthless. The most important piece of property is the self, for without it you cannot even make any choices pertaining to any outside object. If this is rejected, all property rights are rejected. Without the right to rational action, you cannot be said to be living. Either you are being controlled by some entity outside your control or you are dead. Being a mental slave means that you are acting because of the choices of someone else, not your own. In what way, then, can it truly be said that it is your life? You would be nothing more than a vessel for someone else; an extension of them. Therefore, in order to recognize the right to life you need to recognize two things: that you have no obligations to anyone else, and following from that that you have no right to impose your own will on anyone else. If you accept the first without the second, you are creating a double-standard; excluding yourself from rules imposed on others for no good reason. If the fetus has no rightful claim to the mother's resources (because the mother does not consent), it can be denied them. Forcing the mother to keep the fetus would be equivalent to forcing the owner of a house to allow a homeless man to stay. In both cases, the owner of the property has no obligation to any who may want access to it. If the fetus is denied the mother's resources before the point of viability, it will, with almost 100% certainty, die. Given that the death of the fetus is inevitable, it is perfectly reasonable to kill it sooner rather than later. I realize that it may seem like that argument could be used to justify killing of all people, given that everyone dies sooner or later. However, this is ignoring the fact that the differences between the deaths of the fetuses are small enough to be ignored. When dealing with longer time frames, there is a higher chance that something in the scenario will change enough to be noticed. If two pictures are taken at the exact same time and come out the exact same way, down to the molecular level and the space that they occupy, you cannot call them different entities. Much like that, you could not call the deaths of the fetuses different enough to matter. I'm interested to see what my opponent's arguments will be.