Anti-Abortion Laws

" 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. " Ad authoritatem, dictionary.com or any other dictionary is not the sole determinant of what a word can be defined as. I got the definition from Ayn Rand's definition of man (I used "human" to make it sound more gender-neutral.) When a word is consistently used in a certain definition, it acquires that definition for the purposes it was used for. "Person" should not be used because it is linguistically derived as a subset of "people," i.e. the individual is derived from the collective rather than the other way around, which is simply bad aesthetics. Besides it also contains the legal term "person," which includes all sorts of strange things. I have given the definition of the term, abide by it or give a better reason to cast it aside than some book or website you take as an article of faith. " 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." You ignored the possibilities "Something that takes EVERYTHING on faith," and the unmentioned possibility of a permanent mental disability (some of which do not remove the trait of rationality, and some of which do.) Both of those continue to exist (albeit at the whim of others) yet neither can be called rational. A key part of the definition of reason is that you have to choose to use it. A "Certain" (i.e. preordained) use of reason is a contradiction in terms. " 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." Dolphins have shown quantitative ability? Or any other form of reason? News to me. Show me the results. And then show me it is possible for them to ever show reciprocity (because remember without it the reason alone doesn't help :D). Keep in mind I'm not saying the evidence is conclusive on infants having reason, I'm just saying it's there. If it turns out not to be there, the baby doesn't gain rights by that fact, it loses them. And preschoolers certainly have one, in forming their theory of mind (wellman & others, 2001). They have reciprocity too, as someone watching them interact can tell, even if it's imperfect. " 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? " I didn't say that the crying was proof of rationality, I said it was among the things it had a right to do without interference if it does have rationality. " This is demonstrably false. I fail to see in the least how ANY implicit promise made." Failure to see is not a demonstration :P "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." As paid employees of the parents. Obviously contracts can exchange obligations rather easily. That's how people are able to take on another's debt if they wish for example. As for how it's an implicit promise, it is because showing affection and care to a newborn infant means in that infants' understanding, (and the parents obviously realize this, usually), "This is my momma, she wants to care for me for a long time." Much as a handshake in the understanding of two businessmen means "Bargain struck," or "I promise to help you" in the understanding of two english speakers means- well I think you can figure that out. I might be making an error here, but if so, the consequence would not be that all of a sudden "Nevermind anti-abortion laws are good." It would be "nevermind there is never an obligation to care for an infant." You don't toss everything out because you make one error at the end, when the rest is valid. "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." Do both the rich and the poor understand that a one-time charity donation is essentially code for "I'm your mommy, I will help you for a long time?" I don't think so. Most infants and most parents as far as I can tell do understand the relevant action as such. " "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" Perhaps I should clarify that this only applies when you don't have some other reason than "Rights" for doing it. E.g. you may find the harm from doing so less than other harm for not. It's harmful in itself but it may not be harmful on net. "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. " Your assuming that my arguments are designed specifically to give rights or exclude them from populations according to idle whims. They are not. There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate that this gives rights to animals (by which you mean known non-homo sapiens on earth I presume, homo sapiens are after all among the more intelligent animals), but if such evidence arose, I would not abandon these rights, because I still seek to live. I would apply them to the animals that fit the criteria. So far the only animal that has been demonstrated to is homo sapiens, but I will not ignore evidence of others, nor abandon it for fear of them. Note that most "animal rights" advocates still rely on the "rights from suffering" approach (which makes no sense, murderers suffer when you defend yourself from them, such a notion of rights is suicide). And the "implicit promise," since the challenge was to your notion that my whole idea of rights (not the specific application to infants) was flawed, means you are stating something false. My concept of rights does not rely on an implicit promise, only the application to infants does. Since the rights themselves are of a higher order, and have no assumption dependency on the application to infants, your argument does not cancel them. Length violation, continued in comments.