Neurosophist

The main point is that the contract is valid contingent upon the fetus not holding the status which we confer rights on. My point about being able to become pregnant or unpregnant dependant on whether it assaults another's rights depends on: A the fetus having rights or not B any outside party's rights being violated, ie in which some "contract" or other agreement which would apply to the nature of one's relationship, whether there was some consent that if conception occurred the pregnancy would be terminated etc., most of this has to deal with property rights though, such as a sperm donor not having rights to the unknown child or whether a surrogate mother can choose to break an agreement, keep a child, etc.

Continue to hate something, not someone, to say that you hate even the most anathema historical character is to say that you pay credence to the superiority or validity of their errors and admit that you don't know why someone did such an aggregious act or can't come up for an explanation for it, whereas if you truly understood their error you would not "hate" them, but simply understand that they were mistaken and move on. This reminds me of Peikoff's writing On Good and the quandary which would be someone who could be rational and at the same time commit suicide, who Peikoff says would deserve the worst criticism for their hatred of life itself, the standard upon which all else is built. I don't understand how such an individual could possibly exist, for true rationality would dictate that understood life was of ultimate value and therefore could not "hate" it. All suicides, at least in situations where there is another rational recourse, and all hatred towards an individual, assigning them intrinsic value of evil, is irrational.

"Hate is the normal, automatic, response to those things which destroy your values." In the examples provided, the inanimate objects which you hate are not so much things which "destroy" values, often they provide challenges which reinforce values and the rightness thereof. Hating something like the natural order of the world is not quite indicative of a healthy value system, if you hate reality, what can you love? What you express is closer to frustration or anger, hate could be reserved for any of the deeper more ideological concepts which we might experience, but I find it hard to think that I would ever hate anyone as more than a momentary irrational thought, as the individual would either, as you say, be too weak and pathetic to prove a source of potently contrary values, or they would be touching upon an instance in which they were right and I was wrong, and then from that experience conceivably I could better myself.

Although it certainly has political implications in the case provided, there's no reason not to discuss it as it pertains to an individual's rights as a general aspect of philosophy. A more prescient example perhaps would be the ashcroft anti-terrorist agenda, wherein the threat of a terrorist attack is deemed worthy enough to suspend an individual's civil rights in case they would destroy american lives and property. Both illustrate that the threat of force can and often must factor into our ethical system, and that there are unresolved issues of how to compensate one's loss of freedom in times when this is unwarranted.

The only grounds for claiming that she did not have the right to become pregnant or unpregnant is when it would negatively impact on the inherent rights of others

In many states currently there are standards which allow for indefinite commitment of an individual who is considered to pose a danger to themselves or others (though they are often brought up for review, similar to a parole hearing). This conflicts greatly with our non-napoleonic code of "Innocent until proven guilty" and there are many horror stories of individuals experiencing breakdowns and winding up in horrid mental facilities for long periods of time. Where do we draw the line regarding the danger we perceive to our selves from an individual who shows scientifically and historically proven signs of threat of initiation of force against us?

It seems an admission of hating someone shows that the person does not adequately know who or what they are hating. The irrational part of hate is deciding that someone is intrinsically flawed, and not merely mistaken. Once you realize that a person is merely mistaken and not intrinsically "evil" there's no rational reason to hate them.