long winded fool

It IS reasonable to assert that the scientific definition of human being should be the assumed the definition of human being in law. To claim otherwise has no authority other than, "This is what I think." Therefore human being = any living or extinct member of the family Homonidae of the group homo, specifically homo sapiens. The UDHR specifies rights that accompany being a member of the human family. You are aware that it is a non sequitur to assume "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," implies that humans have no rights until they are born? All human beings attain adulthood free and equal in dignity and rights. This is a fact which does not imply that there are no rights before adulthood. Because this fact is based on the premise that all members of the human family have the inalienable right to life, it is not sound to assume that the conclusion that some do not follows from the premise that all do.

TomboyMom

To the 7% who said infanticide is O.K.: Are you serious?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
Yet abortion was illegal when this was drafted. How is it obvious that it was intended to exclude embryos?

Abortion has been legal in most of the world. The UN covers the whole world.

As for excluding embryos--note the use of the word "born".

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.

The only contradiction is between your beliefs and what it says.

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."

Invalid logic. Abortion was illegal for other reasons, not for the protection of embryos. If embryos were people then abortion would be equivalent of first degree murder. Reality: The doc was prosecuted but got a far lighter sentance than murder would bring, the woman was not prosecuted at all.

long winded fool

This is true. And not rational.

As for excluding embryos--note the use of the word "born".

I did exactly this! And I've shown that it is a fallacy to assume this as a criterion to apply and revoke rights. You deny my conclusion without showing its error.

The only contradiction is between your beliefs and what it says.

Well? I wait for a proof of some kind. All you give me are irrational assertions. And I can call them irrational because I have proven this to be the case. I have given you a similar but opposite conclusion, yet I have an argument to back mine up. Until you (or someone else) logically show that your assertions are not irrational as I have shown mine, it is obvious that you are asserting things that are categorically false. You are essentially calling the logical illogical.

Invalid logic. Abortion was illegal for other reasons, not for the protection of embryos. If embryos were people then abortion would be equivalent of first degree murder. Reality: The doc was prosecuted but got a far lighter sentance than murder would bring, the woman was not prosecuted at all.

Therefore it is obvious that the UN meant for abortions to be legal? If I were arguing back when abortion was illegal, I would have the same argument and insist that it is only logical for abortion to be first-degree murder. Showing that it was not considered first-degree murder does not refute the argument. Showing why it logically need not be considered first-degree murder does. The fact that the UN failed and continues to fail to enforce the terms of the UDHR does not make the problem of the word "human beings" go away. My definition of human beings is superior to yours and will continue to be until the official definition of human being is changed from the objective, scientifically accepted definition to your subjective definition of person. I have shown that, until that time, your argument will be unsound and the law will be contradictory. As I said before, no one has the authority to change the rules of logic. Not even the UN.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
This is true. And not rational.

Does it occur to you that when most people disagree with you that just perhaps something's wrong with your logic?

As for excluding embryos--note the use of the word "born".

I did exactly this! And I've shown that it is a fallacy to assume this as a criterion to apply and revoke rights. You deny my conclusion without showing its error.

You simply tried to pretend they didn't mean what they said. I did not consider it an adequate refutation at all.

Well? I wait for a proof of some kind. All you give me are irrational assertions.

It says "born". You gave no decent reason we shouldn't take this literally.

Therefore it is obvious that the UN meant for abortions to be legal?

The document you refer to does not address abortion.

If I were arguing back when abortion was illegal, I would have the same argument and insist that it is only logical for abortion to be first-degree murder. Showing that it was not considered first-degree murder does not refute the argument.

The point is that the law has never seen it anything like your way.

long winded fool

Indeed it does. Often, in fact. However it also occurs to me that the fact that most people disagree with me does not prove that my logic is unsound. Argumentum ad populum. I try not to let the opinion of the masses affect my critical thinking skills. I don't care what my friends say.

You simply tried to pretend they didn't mean what they said. I did not consider it an adequate refutation at all.

Why not?

It says "born". You gave no decent reason we shouldn't take this literally.

So I must take your interpretation (which was shown to be fallacious) literally and at face value, while my literal interpretation is faulty and the term interpreted means something other than what is expressly stated? How do you jump from arguing that a specific term need not be taken literally to arguing another term in the same document must be taken literally? This is hypocritical. Do you deny that it is a non sequitur to assume that, since "All are born free and equal," those not born must by definition be neither free nor equal? If you mean to say that logic is no decent reason to change your beliefs, then I must disagree. Logic ought to be the only reason to change your beliefs. It says born free. As in humans are born free, implying that they are born with the characteristic of freedom and equality. By what logic can you assume that the birth process is what confers these things, and that they do not exist before the human being has left the birth canal? Even taking this one statement out of context of the rest of the document and taking the term "human beings" out of the argument entirely, how is it not arguable that these characteristics exist before birth? It is an arbitrary assertion with no basis other than "this is what everybody else thinks it means." So then, since "born" is not a logical line to draw, where can you go from here when declaring a line of human rights? Logically, you can go nowhere. I guess this is why the pro-choice often shy away from drawing a line. It cannot be done logically.

The document you refer to does not address abortion.

Then it doesn't address rape either... or bank robbery... or assault and battery...

The point is that the law has never seen it anything like your way.

Irrelevant. I have shown the law to be irrational, which implies that a logical argument condemning an irrational law is superior to said law. If the law is not amended in the face of this argument, then the legal system of the country is irrational. This might be a good thing for all I know. I don't claim to have the superior morality, I claim the rational argument. The rules of logic never lie.

dk

The “right to life” prefigures all other human rights entitled by personhood, therefore serves as the lynchpin upon which all rights swing. One might assume an illiterate dumb person can’t speak, so lacks free speech rights. But of course this is absurd because the right to life confers gratis upon all persons a full complement of human rights. To impugn anyone’s “right to life” denigrates all other rights, and to denigrate anyone’s human rights impugns the “right to life”. I’ll grant you a fetus can’t speak, read or write any better than an illiterate dumb person, but the “right to life” being a lynchpin swings on the principle of “equal before the law”. You stated, “Being human does not grant one all rights” I’m correcting you, the right to life gratis extends to all human being all human rights, the alternative being that the rights conferred are inhuman, superhuman or subhuman, or the subject being considered is a sub-human being. Logically an immature, young, old, sick, deformed, handicapped and depraved person has a full allotment of human rights, or they are less than human, or something other than fully human. A fetus is purely human and has no potential to be anything other than human except dead. Any other conclusion is unreasonable. Adults only appear to have more rights than children because the rights of children are held in proxy to protect the child, family, and society.
dk: Well if a human being can be denied a right to life, then human beings can’t possibly contain a right to life. Now you’ve lost me.
dk: I agree under the law fetuses have no “right to life”. This only impugns the “right to life”, and all other human rights. There was a day when women didn’t have a right to vote, people were sold at auction as property, and Caliphs stole then gelded male children to form their personal guard and elite troops. Still women, slaves and children are suited to human rights, and when the law acts against the law people live lawlessly.
dk: Absent evidence? It seems to me human rights extend gratis to all human beings, or they don’t exist. Logic requires a consistent, verifiable and coherent explanation. To propose “it is logical to distribute universal or inalienable human rights selectively” is inconsistent, unverifiable and incoherent. If someone punches a pregnant women in the stomach to cause a spontaneous abortion, that’s murder even today. There is no arbitrary point in fetal development when the fetus becomes more human or less human. However we define human life follows from the human life cycle that begins at conception, each stage contingent upon the previous. People can categorize a fetus as subhuman, pre-human, potential-human, STD, Cancer or parasites, just as people can dehumanized blacks, infidels, foreigners, savages and barbarians as inhuman for one reason or another. To deny any human being a “right to life” causes everyone to logically reevaluate universal human rights as a selective privilege, granted by the laws enacted by some governing body. Logic demands my liberty end where the freedom of others begins, and if I am at liberty to kill another human being then freedom has no meaning.

In effect your argument logically impugns the right to life by denying any possiblity of freedom.

Nickle

If killing animals is ok, then killing a human before it develops the features that distinguish it from other animals is ok.

The complex brain is the distinguishing feature.
This doesn't develop all at once, but it certainly starts well after the first trimester, so we needn't worry.

Late term and infants start to creep into the gray area, which I have no problem with not allowing. However, the first trimester is not in any gray area--it has no brain, other than to run the organs. At that point I would consider an adult pig more of a person.

Dr Rick

We are in complete agreement on this point; fetuses have no legal right to life. You and others might forcefully argue that they should, and draw analogies and bring-up other stuff to support your opinion, and that's okay; but arguing that they "logically" do under the UN UDHR or US Constitution when they don't (you haven't, but someone else has on this thread has) is irrational.

Rick

long winded fool

What is a complex brain and how do you know if you have one? Is there a certain point that a brain must reach before it can be designated complex? If it is a gradual development, then are less intelligent people less human and more animal than more intelligent people? If we find out that a bottle-nosed dolphin's brain is more complex than we previously thought, is there a danger that dolphins could become human beings? If a human being's brain doesn't even function properly enough to feed him, can we call him an animal and revoke his human right to life for our convenience? What if he is my son? Does this make a difference? Do I have the right to revoke my son's right to life more so than someone else's? Why?

The presence of a complex brain does not solely distinguish man (an animal) from beast (an animal.) Though it is true that human beings have more complex brains than any known animal, it is not strictly this quality which makes us human beings. Walking fully erect also distinguishes humans from animals. Since infants do not walk fully erect, are they considered non-human animals? A human being is a human being solely because it is of the family Hominidae of the group Homo. No other creature can be called a human being, regardless of its cranial capacity. A human being with no brain is still a human being. If the law states that all human beings are entitled to inalienable human rights, then the law must account for why a certain group is excluded for the convenience of another. Rights cannot be equal if this is the case, yet proponents of legal abortion not only irrationally make this claim, they feel they need no logical argument to prove their case since the law already states it. They are in effect appealing to the authority of the law to prove their logic. In a country where slavery was once legal, I think any responsible individual would see the danger of this ad populum way of determining the rational from the irrational.