Abortion

"My definition of life is incorrect" No. You never gave a definition of life - only when life began which is wholly different - and I definitely did not agree with that. :D It matters little though, I do not argue that the foetus is not living, it is certainly not a human being though (more on that later). You also never clarified about organisms that are discrete (bacteria, cells) that are also quite clearly living but minus a heart. Many multi cellular organisms are alive but are heartless e.g. Echinoderms (starfish, sea cucumbers etc.). "2. By the way I stated my conjecture, I have to award the rights to life to all creatures with a heart." Not that either. Refer to rights by rational basis R1, and the arbitrary nature of rights by heartbeat alone "Parasitic worms have hearts - by your premise removal of these would be forbidden." "The definition of a live organism ..." This is a good example of why you should be clear on your definitions. ;) "Let me fully reply to your question..." To be clear there are several guidelines that are used to determine what life is. Again I do not contend that the foetus is not alive - I would argue that it is from the first union of sperm and egg. That is not what rights are based on however. You define humanness therefore by the quality of having a heart - which is again an arbitrary value - and you contradict yourself, saying that the heart is the value of life of an organism (foetus) but that its component parts are alive without one. Either the heart is the value of life or it is not. It is only an issue when you view the foetus as an entity and not as the label of development it clearly is. "A. Contraceptives are fallible [fallible - capable of making errors]" Close - likely to fail and make errors. "A. In response to letter A, The birth control pill itself, when taking consistently is 99.8% accurate. The male condom is 98 percent accurate." Fantastic - 2 out of every 100 uses of the condom are statistically going to fail. That is just "perfect use" as well, not taking into account how people actually engage in sexual practices. Minus those that are allergic to latex - have a religious belief that prohibits their use, those that cannot take the morning after/the pill due to other medical concerns, availability, location, money... "However, Abstinence is a 100% way of not having a child." So you are advocating now that sex should be reserved for procreation ...just to be sure? That rhetoric violates personal freedoms. Individuals should not be pressured from having sex under the threat of the enforcement of birth. Again it is a punishment for the non crime of sex - a punishment that lasts legally for 18 years costing time, money, health and freedom of life. "In no way is the right to privacy being compromised in any way..." It refers to the Fourteenth Amendment's concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action (prenumbral rights) - i.e. the punishment (state enforced if you illegalise abortion) of birth for the non crime of sex and getting pregnant. The state in effect is enforcing the use of contraceptives as a deterrent of the now legal punishment of unwanted accidental pregnancy. "C. I never stated that contraceptives ..." Over 20 years? I think not. On average 100 times a year over 20 years equates to $40 000. That is being generous - sexual activity frequently occurs before 18. So cheaper? - I think not. Let's be clear, once you start enforcing birth, people will be forced to undergo these costs as the risk factor of unwanted births is now inescapable legally. Unless you are from a lower SES in which case the risk of birth increases. "So unless the person having sexual intercourse forgot 35 ..." 35 seems reasonable once you consider timing - medical concerns from taking the pill or latex, periods etc. Don't forget the risk factor is now extremely high - if you get pregnant you will in all likelihood by the time of discovery be in a position legally where abortion is not an option - the gamble over 18 years of costs means 1. Illegal abortions rise (probable and unsafe - seen before it became legal) and/or people take extra measures to ensure non pregnancy (extra costs). Still doesn't seem like infringements upon personal liberties? "E. The chances ..." Yes sex is a choice - forcing a birth is only a restriction - under your premise it is legally mandated remember - that is most definitely not freedom (no choice). "---The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim..." Not exactly. Victim is not equitable to human being. To have full American rights, you must first be an American citizen. To be an American citizen, you must be born in America. One who is not born in America (a foetus is unborn) can not possess American rights. To formulate something illegal in the United States, it must breach the law. Taking a foetus' life is not technically illegal, as a foetus is not a legal U.S. citizen and therefore has no U.S. rights. A foetus, actually, is technically not a citizen of any country and has no rights at all. It would appear contradictory (allowing abortion - punishing crimes against a foetus) however not if you consider the position of the mother in both cases (this is a question about philosophy of law - not the law alone). In both cases the mother's rights are recognised as in control of her body and choices thereof (hence non illegal abortion) likewise from the moment of death or injury to the foetus her right to choice and her body at the moment of crime was the decision of keeping the foetus (by virtue of still being pregnant) - and this is the basis for the punishment of said crimes. In both instances the mother's choice is relevant. Even upon birth the child does not have the full right to life - its death would ensue quickly if this was the case. In fact until the child is 18 it is a prisoner of its home. " "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person..." Read above. "3. I completely agree, public opinion is not how we solely make decisions in the U.S., however we do use it as a factor to our judgements..." This in no way makes them good or right. "5. Rights are certainly not derived from rationality..." Infants cannot reason - correct. They have no ability to that regard - i.e. no experience outside of the womb. Elderly traditionally lose memory not reason - which is discrete, it may lessen the experience of application but it is not eradicated. Mentally handicapped - again, similarly it is a reduction not removal. Neither of these cases are irrational beings unlike a foetus, which is.