long winded fool

Again, I am not arguing that abortion is illegal. Pointing out abortion laws to show that abortion is legal is valid, but has no bearing on my argument. Abortion was not meant to be banned by the UDHR. The purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to specify that all human beings have inalienable rights. Since fetuses aren't excluded in the "human family," they must be included since they are human beings. Persons aren't fetuses and fetuses aren't persons, yet both are human beings. Until certain human beings are excluded on the basis of development, legal abortion is not logical. There is no evidence that the authors intended to exclude embryos, either. Since ALL HUMAN BEINGS includes embryos, it is illogical to assume that they meant to exclude embryos. If they did, they'd have explicitly done so. They would have had to use Pechtel's "persons" or a similar term instead of human beings to make it possible to interpret fetuses as not having inalienable human rights. Since "human beings" was used, it is only logical that it is the pro-choice who have the false interpretation. I'm afraid this argument has not been refuted by anyone posting on this board. I've soundly shown that all attempts at refutation have failed thus far. I'm sorry if I've brought into question your opinion of your own rationality, but all I can do is obey the rules of logic. So far, they are on my side, and pro-choice is a hypocritical postition. I wish this wasn't so, so that I could respect this counter-interpretation of law based on subjective morality, but I've been unable to prove to myself that legal abortion can be anything but contradictory. Please prove me wrong, if you can. Otherwise honor the truth of logic and reason and accept the argument as sound.

"I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors and I shall adopt new views so fast as they appear to be true views."
-Abraham Lincoln

Dr Rick

I have no desire to continue to repeat myself; if you ever do come up with a rational argument to support your opinion, please post it.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
Abortion was not meant to be banned by the UDHR. The purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was to specify that all human beings have inalienable rights. Since fetuses aren't excluded in the "human family," they must be included since they are human beings.

You continue to redefine terms to suit you.

There is no evidence that the authors intended to exclude embryos, either. Since ALL HUMAN BEINGS includes embryos, it is illogical to assume that they meant to exclude embryos. If they did, they'd have explicitly done so.

No. It's clear from context that they are excluded. One normally does not bother to make clear the obvious.

They would have had to use Pechtel's "persons" or a similar term instead of human beings to make it possible to interpret fetuses as not having inalienable human rights. Since "human beings" was used,

You're the one redefining it. The fetus is human. It's not a human being no matter how much you try to exploit the ambiguity in English.

dk

Rick to soundly refute long wind's argument you need to offer a substantive defintion for unborn human life, other than human. While a blastula, embryo and fetus remain human abortion succeeds by killing a human being.

long winded fool

Then thank you for the candor Dr. Rick.

Redefining terms requires changing the definition of human being to something other than the accepted definition. I've done no such thing. You've done exactly this.

No. It's clear from context that they are excluded. One normally does not bother to make clear the obvious.

I have a logical argument that shows otherwise. You tried to refute it several times and failed, would you like to try again?

You're the one redefining it. The fetus is human. It's not a human being no matter how much you try to exploit the ambiguity in English.

I was unaware that using the objective scientific definition of a word was exploiting ambiguity in English. There is nothing ambiguous about the difference between a noun and an adjective. Assuming human being means something other than its definition is creating ambiguity and is not only unnecessary, it is irrational. I understand that it may seem necessary if your argument hinges on the interpretation of a word meaning something different than its accepted definition, but this is obviously where the false assumption lies. How quickly we project our own errors onto others.

Dr Rick

What is the basis for your assertion? lwf claims that the UN UDHR and the US Constitution must logically apply to fetuses, though his argument is not sound. What his argument comes down to is that he really thinks it should apply to fetuses; that's a valid opinion, but no more "logical" than the converse. What's not valid is his continued equivocation of terminology, his restatement of premises as logical conclusions, and his ignoring the articles of the documents and the actions of the relevant organizations that do not support his claims. I never claimed that a fetus is anything other than human, and in fact have asserted that it is human in my earlier posts. Your assertion that I must define it as "other than human" doesn't seem to make sense.

An unborn human life is one that hasn't been born, and yes, abortion does kill a human.

My providing this definition does not refute lwf's argument afaik, but the articles of the UN UDHR, the US Constitution, the use of logic, and reality all do. Our assertion that a fetus is human does not lend any support to the claim that the UN UDHR must logically apply to fetuses when the document clearly spells-out rights to those that have been born. When the UN body perceives a violation of what it intended, it passes resolutions condemning the offending nation(s). The UN has not done this with countries that allow abortions; in fact, it employs abortion services as part of it family planning services in developing countries, so it's clear that UN does not intend the UDHR to extend to fetuses.

Absent evidence that it was the intention of the UN to extend rights to fetuses and/or acceptance of idiosyncratic re-definitions of born, and in the face of evidence that the UN does not apply or extend the UDHR to fetuses, there is simply no valid reason to assert that the UN UDHR must "logically" apply to fetuses.

Rick

long winded fool

Again, this was my premise. I agree that abortion is an accepted practice by the UN and unborn humans aren't included in human rights. You insist that this is logical, however your only argument seems to be appealing to the authority of the UN. While they do have the authority to make laws, they do not have the authority to make illogical things logical. You insist that this law is logical with no argument, save pointing out that it is clearly the accepted law. I assert that this law is illogical with a sound argument. I agree that abortion is legal. I disagree that it is logical and I have shown the logic of this law to be erroneous. Neither the laws nor reality refute my argument. They both do refute the argument that abortion is not legal, however. You can disagree that legal abortion is irrational, but you help no one if you don't know why.

Loren Pechtel

You were arguing that the UN declaration means something other than what everyone interprets it to mean and what they obviously intended it to mean.

long winded fool

Yet abortion was illegal when this was drafted. How is it obvious that it was intended to exclude embryos? It is FAR more likely that the opposite is the case and I think any logical, objective reader would presume the opposite as the obvious intention. It is never logical to presume criteria that contradict a term apply to the term. If abortion were already illegal, there would be no need to specifically address embryos. They would be assumed already included in the term "human beings." Since nowhere does it state that certain types of human beings do not have rights, and it is clearly stated that all human beings have rights, it should be blatantly obvious that all human beings have these rights. Abortion was not an issue in the UDHR; therefore it is not rational to assume that its purpose was to exclude embryos in particular. It is reasonable to presume that "all human beings" includes all things that fall under the definition of human being. (These statements are all so obvious that they ought to be considered a priori truths and need no explanation, however I don't mind spelling them out.) The decision to make certain human beings exempt not only needs a logical explanation, it needs to conform to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Convenience for the majority is not a valid explanation as was shown with the abolition of slavery, and abortion is the same error. The UDHR is obviously intended to mean exactly what it says. All members of the human family have certain inalienable rights, including the right to life.

Though you may yet refute me, I don't think it will happen with this particular argument.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

Dr Rick

That is correct, and yet nowhere does the UDHR say abortions are proscribed or fetuses have rights.

If it was intended to do either, the document would say so explicitly.

It is contradictory to assert that the "UDHR is obviously intended to mean exactly what it says" and then claim that it means something that it does not say.

Contradictions are not logical; neither is your argument.

That is also correct, but it is unreasonable to claim that the definition you assert is the definiton the authors intended when your definition contradicts the document itself. The UDHR specifies rights that accompany being born, not rights that accompany conception.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically and exactly mentions "men", "women", and "children"; nowhere does it say anything about fetuses, nor does it address abortion.


Rick