Anti-Abortion Laws

"Homo sapiens" for any meaningful purpose is not synonymous with "human." Homo sapiens" is the biological species under which all known humans fall, but human, for the purpose here, is defined as "rational animal." I looked up the definition of human on dictionary.com. Several of the definitions mentioned homo sapiens, or hominid, or the genus "homo," but none of them defined human as being a rational animal (though one or two did mention higher intelligence). I was not equivocating. My rephrasing of your sentence was substantially correct, even if not a philosophically precise (though I contest your philosophical definition anyway. The nearest term I can reconcile to your definition would be "person"). A homo sapiens is something one talks about in a laboratory, and not something one encounters in real life. A human is a member of your own species. "It may turn into a miscarriage, or an aborted fetus, or a stillborn creature, or someone who accepts absolutely everything on faith Many such possibilities exist in which a homo sapiens fetus does not become rational." Many such possibilities do not exist. There are essentially three possibilities: A rational creature, a fetus that dies naturally, or an abortion. Saying "It may or may not turn into something rational," is misleading. It will either turn into something rational or it will cease to exist somehow. This is, in principle, the same thing as a sleeping adult. It is not currently using rational judgment, but if it continues to exist, it certainly will. Frankly, I think your distinction between a "rational being" and a being that will certainly use reason if it continues to exist to be blown way out of proportion. "Babies are in fact demonstrably capable of certain rational functions" I hadn't heard this. Or, at least, some animals are capable of many of the same functions. Dolphins supposedly have the intelligence of a five year old. Are dolphins entitled to the same rights as babies or small children? I don't believe they are, because rights should not be based on rationality or intelligence. "but when they are born they do exercise their liberty by crying." I would be interested to see some study which says that crying is a rationally chosen action. I was under the impression that it was instinct. Actually, don't doctors spank the new born in order to start it crying so it will breathe? "When a parent (or other party) begins the task of caring for them, they make an implicit promise to continue to do so as long as necessary, and therein lies the obligation by contract" This is demonstrably false. I fail to see in the least how ANY implicit promise made. And anyway, if this is the case, there are a LOT of nurses out there who have violated this contract. I guarantee you that there have been many cases in which a doctor or nurse begin caring for the child before the parents. "it is the only position I can take in light of the knowledge available." It is a clever position, even if it is flawed. I don't see how you can prove this implicit promise. It seems to me to be as arbitrary as saying a rich man must care for a poor one if the rich one gives to charity. The only reason your claim to an implicit promise is more tenable is the fact that the ones making the promise are assumed to be the parents (which is often not the case). "Surely you must realize that some people will have a kid because they want to? It's their womb, their issue. EVERY pregnancy ending in abortion would mean force of law against them still, and would violate the woman's rights as much as outlawing abortion." I never argued that your position would necessitate an abortion legally. I only said it would ethically, and the way you stated your position, it would. I recognize, though, that this is not your position, but only an argument made possible but a tiny lack of clarity on your part. "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." This statement of yours is not a really accurate reflection of your position, or else it would make owning a pet or caring for a child unethical. 1. "What's unacceptable of what I put up above?" It relies on what is a best an unproven premise of an implicit promise. It further gives rights to the more intelligent animals (the same rights as small children) that I believe both of us agree they should not have. 2. "Simply because someone holds a specific irrational belief does not mean they are completely lacking in rationality." True, but it might make them less rational which could conceivably entitle them to fewer rights. While you give babies a minimum of rights (and more than I think your system logically entitles them to), you can't give them the same rights as adults, so rights do exist in degrees of rationality. While the more egregious and obvious violations of rights would only occur under perversions of objectivism, I think it is entirely conceivable that "indoctrination of children" could be considered a crime under an objectivist legal system. If a child does indeed posses rights, a parent passing on their beliefs could be seen as a violation of those rights. 3. ""Science" is strictly for discovering particulars, concretes. It is incapable of a solution in ethics." You're correct, but science is perfectly capable of determining what is human. According basic rights based on species might not be supported by any particular ethical system (in this debate), but it does accord an acceptable safety net of rights. That safety net really is needed, as was proved in the genocides of the 1940's. 4. "But my skin cell is genetically human, does it have the right to not be forced by me to go through sunlight? Cancer is genetically human; does it have a right to not be killed by being cured?" A skin cell is not an organism. It can not be considered an organism by itself and cannot therefore be accorded the rights of an organism. Cancer may be a bit more difficult. I would maintain that it is not technically human either, as it does not function like a human cell. This is a bit more difficult to maintain, as I'm not particularly studied in genetics, but I think it is a tenable contention. 4.5 Voters, if you feel that my opponent's views about rights have been disproved, and that my safety net idea may be correct, you have practically conceded my point. If a hunter believes that there is a reasonable chance that a being possessing rights MIGHT be behind a bush, he is ethically obligated not to fire into that bush. Therefore, if there is a reasonable chance that a fetus might legitimately possess rights, that fetus should possess those rights (at least in cases of basic rights like life and death). Length Violation, ccontinued on comments.