Anti-Abortion Laws

Before I give my argument, I have a few notes: "A fetus is a group of cells that happen to have the characteristic of homo sapien DNA." This sentence is really absurd coming from one who happens to claim that A is A. The closest thing I could think of is saying that a rabbit is bits of flesh and fur that happen to have the characteristic of big ears and a fuzzy tail. Let's break it down further: "a group of cells" Why not a group of atoms? That's technically accurate too. The fact that the group of cells forms a single living organism really isn't worth mentioning anyway. An organism or a mold, it's all really the same thing. That is, a group of cells. "characteristic of homo sapien DNA" I'm not certain why characteristic is here. And homo sapien means human. And the fact that it is human DNA means it is genetically human. So, translated away from the long words and gross imprecision, the sentence reads: "A fetus is an organism that happens to be genetically human." But A is A, right? "It may or may not eventually turn into something rational" REALLY? What, so it might turn into a chicken? A goose maybe? Will that fetus turn into a little turtle? The fact of the matter is, if everything goes as it is biologically intended to, the fetus will DEFINITELY turn into something rational, which is no surprise, since it is already human (at least if we are to trust genetics in such matters). For someone who makes the audacious claim that A is A, you certainly seem to be doing a lot of equivocating. Now, to my argument. I thought of it in a much more informal debate with another objectivist, and it was merely denied rather than disproved. Anyway, you've been much clearer in your arguments, and I will be really interested to see what you do with it. Frankly, your position quite clearly supports infanticide. Or, if not infanticide, at least what would clearly be child abuse. Rights are, according to you, "the proper relations between rational beings." Babies are no more rational than third trimester fetuses. Certainly, they have no conception of ethics, which you also deem necessary. A new born child, or any baby that can not yet speak, "does not demonstrably think, and if it does think, its thoughts are certainly not yet evident in its actions. It does not produce the necessities of its own existence, nor anything to trade for them. It just sits there," on a teat "sucking away. It thus violates the requirement of reason." While this may not justify outright killing of the baby, it certainly justifies starving the child, taking no precautions for the baby's safety, or any other form of neglect one can think of. As you say, the lack of reason "is why it does not have a right to life, or anything else." I mean, you've really dug a hole here. In your system, reason is everything. Because of that, it would seem that every pregnancy ought to end in an abortion. You build the argument yourself. Any fetus is in violation of reciprocity. "A fetus also does not observe the rights of the woman who does not wish it there… It thus violates the requirement of Reciprocity." Violating reciprocity is against one's rational self interest. Reciprocity, for treating beings in a manner consistent with rights that they do not treat you with is not only not helpful to your life, it's harmful to it. It is rational to remove the violator of reciprocity. "Thus you do not deny them their right to life, so as to facilitate their denying you yours. This changes when they deny yours first, as they prove themselves irrational by doing so, and remove any future causality between your attacks on them and theirs on you. Indeed they reverse it, because you now have to kill them or otherwise interfere with their life in order to preserve your right to your own." The logic is pretty clear here. If rational self interest based on reciprocity justifies the choice of an abortion, it demands the choice of an abortion. A being acting against reason, if I am not mistaken, is contemptible by your standards. And based on Reciprocity, allowing any pregnancy is violating reason. I may be getting out of line with your principles here. It is possible there is some subtlety that I'm missing, but it seems to me that A is A, and A is very clear in this case. I'm unfortunately busy right now, so I'll post my arguments FOR anti abortion laws in the third round. I'll sum them up here, though, and give Ragnar a chance to hit them before I elaborate on them (and his hitting them ought to improve my elaborating them anyway). 1.No really acceptable definition of the nature of rights has been found thus far. 2.Rights based on rationality is further unacceptable, because rationality (being immaterial, as most of the greatest things in life are) is imprecise and open to abuses (for instance, many would call religious people irrational, making it possible for them to be stripped of rights). 3.Given that philosophy has been unable to give an acceptable framework of rights, science should intervene, and propose a solution that is not open to broad or abusive interpretations. 4.Genetics being the best guide to nature, anything genetically human possesses basic rights, like that of life (a note, a sperm and an ovum are not genetically human). 5.On a less interesting note, 95% of abortions are unrelated to rape or health of the mother, and ought to be banned, as at some point the woman involved consented to an act that she knew could result in a child. 6.On another (somewhat feeble) note, the topic is merely anti-abortion laws, and since I can't pop an Advil in school without parental permission and a doctor's note, underage teens should not legally be allowed to undergo this invasive surgical procedure without parental consent (allowing, of course, for exceptions decided by a court in cases of possible abuse).