Abortion should be legalized.

I suppose I agree that not all arguments for legal abortion are hypocritical. Albeit, I still believe they are deeply flawed. In regards to applying Natural Rights ethics, I think the main flaw of the pro-lifer argument is that there is ambiguity in what defines life. There is not ambiguity in that the woman is a life. The very existence of the debate would, to myself, indicate the life of the woman should be prioritized. It would also indicate to me that as long as the debate continued, abortion should be legal as otherwise, it would definitely take lives and MAYBE advocate murder. I believe it is the place of a government to establish and uphold laws that protect its citizens, so in this case, the government (or state) has two options. 1) Legalize abortion. Women are not being killed, the unborn might be. 2) Ban abortion. Women are being killed, the unborn might be. Even accepting Natural Rights arguments, the ambiguity in what defines a life also muddles how clear it is whether or not the woman is a criminal, or whether or not she deserves to die for taking another life. I am of the opinion that we should prioritize what we definitely know as life, and so it seems comparatively more immoral to myself that we ban abortion, definitely killing people who didn't deserve it, than if we legalized abortion, possibly killing people who didn't deserve it. In regards to your paragraph highlighting the difference between consensual sex and rape, I agree with you. I believe there is a significant difference in regards to responsibility. My point was that if one is truly a pro-lifer, then the circumstances should make no difference, as the pro-lifer's argument is not that people shouldn't get abortions because of responsibility, but rather because abortions are murder. However, the child conceived is not responsible for how it was conceived, and the circumstances of conception should not compromise the value of life, if one truly believes it is a life. My point in presenting the situation of a woman not acknowledging the fetus as a life was primarily to note that there is a necessity for government and state definition on what defines a life. In your hypothetical situation of the legalization of infanticide, I would contest the state's ruling. It seems what we keep coming back to is establishing what exactly "life" is. To myself, the distinction between humans and animals is primarily in mental capacities, and thus once the fetus has a mind developed enough to emit EEG, it can be considered, legally, a human life. You do bring up the point that there are plenty of rational people, probably more knowledgeable than myself on science, who would disagree, but I believe I've already constructed and presented my argument in regards to how we should consider the fetus, and you seem to agree with me to an extent, providing no other real counter-argument than 'Well, there are people who disagree.' I hold these views regardless of how they should be legalized or implemented. If you believe it is an argument to be held at the state level, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the state level. To those who believe it is a federal matter, then this is my reasoning for legalizing abortion at the federal level. Regardless of how the system implements it, I believe abortion a necessary right.