Dr Rick

...excellent, lwf; but here's another way to word it that would be irrefutable:

"Fetuses are not guaranteed the right to life by the laws of this country when they are all taken into context. My argument is solely that this is not a logical notion. Though universal inalienable human rights guaranteeing the right to life that include fetuses cannot logically coexist with legal abortion, I admit that inalienable human rights that don't include fetuses absolutely do. By the laws of this country, human rights are equal and abortion is legal."

dk

A person's right to life is hardly abstract from anyone's perspective. If a fetus lacks a right to life, then from what does a right to life necessarily follow. It seems to me its untenable to assert the right to life is arbitrary. If someone murders a fetus punching a pregnant women in the stomach, is that murder or assault, or something else? Do you believe the right to life is arbitrary?

Perhaps abortion can be justified, without substanatively violating the right to life Rick. Is that what you think?

pleasant_darktwist

All in favor of abandoning this hopeless, pointless pursuit, please post your feelings with "Yea"

Or if for some masochistic reason you wish to continue, vote, "Nay."

Let's See What Happens.

long winded fool

Very true, Dr. Rick. I think the reason we disagree is that it seems logically equivalent in my opinion to say, "Universal human rights that include African Americans cannot coexist with legal slavery, though universal human rights which don't include African Americans absolutely can." This too is irrefutable. If slavery were legal and human beings have the right to freedom, in order to get the law repealed one must prove that slaves are human beings. How could you do this if by law only Caucasians are human beings? What does the word 'human being' refer to? Is it strictly a legal term, or is it also a scientific term? The law is not absolute. Though the law might not recognize slaves as human beings, this does not mean that they are not scientifically of our own species. If a separate law is passed claiming that "human being" is a family of species and that all members of this family of animals have the inalienable right to freedom, this logically forbids slavery since Africans are provably members of the species that are commonly referred to as human beings. To keep slavery legal would present a contradiction. I wonder why this doesn't forbid abortion as well since fetuses are also members of the species commonly referred to as human, although I fully admit that, be it rational or irrational, universal and equal human rights does not forbid abortion in this country. The law obviously only recognizes human beings after they reach a certain level of development. Instead of race, we discriminate against age. The law does not recognize unborn creatures as human beings. While one can argue that this is the legal definition of 'human' in the UDHR, the fact that this definition was not present when the UDHR was drafted makes this assertion speculative at best. To use the definition of human being described by the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act as the definition of the word human being present in a law passed long before the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act was established, and using it to supplant the definition provided by said law, is effectively changing the definition of human being to suit a newer law.

I second dk's remarks. Maybe this is entirely justified. If it is, I'd just like to know the logical basis for the justification. And incidentally Dr. Rick, if the law is absolutely and irrefutably sovereign, then what would be the point of this thread? The law has spoken. Abortion is absolutely and irrefutably legal.

JGL53

Then we're all agreed. End of debate. End of thread. On to the next topic. We who were obviously correct greatly appreciate your concession, lwf. Have a nice day.

long winded fool

lol You do realize that I have merely shown, with the help of my opponents, that my own premise is true? My argument is that legal abortion is illogical and therefore detrimental to the authority of the law and to a reasoning society. It's ironic how when the shoe is on the other foot the infidels wear it just as emotionally and irrationally as the xians.

I know many of the pro-choicers who post here would like to see this argument buried. I feel the point has been made. I have no specific need nor desire to continue, but I am more than happy to do so with anyone who honestly believes that legal abortion is anything but completely illogical, morally reprehensible, and detrimental to the authority of the law and to a free society in general. I'm happy to answer questions and respond to comments from pro-choice and pro-life alike. If you'd rather not hear an uncomfortable but logically sound argument, or would rather not be refuted in front of your peers, you don't have to read the thread, much less respond to it. If you can't refute the argument but don't want to face the fact that it is apparently true, you can always just ignore it the way everyone else does when they hear something they don't like and can't logically refute. I promise I won't talk to myself, though I can't promise I won't appear on another abortion thread with similar observations.

... and thank you. I always have a nice day!

JGL53

I can make a convincing case that our drug laws are 'completely illogical, morally reprehensible, and detrimental to the authority of the law'. Wow - we're both geniuses. Too bad we don't have the power to change the law. If we did, hundreds of thousands of dopeheads would be released from prison. Of course, we'd have to throw them right back in if they had an abortion. Or do you favor capital punishment for murderers?

long winded fool

If we don't have the power to change irrational laws, then democracy and objective reasoning are no longer how laws are decided in this country. If this is the case, then I agree. It is pointless to argue about any law since all laws are correct by definition. Since slavery was once a law and is now illegal, not all laws are correct by definition. Therefore, I assume that it is not pointless to argue about irrational laws. All you have to do is convince the majority and you can get abortion outlawed and drugs legalized. It is more difficult to convince people with an illogical argument stemming from subjective emotion than with a logical one stemming from objective reasoning. Not everyone is honest enough with themselves to be rational of course, but if we are truly a reasoning society, one would hope that at least the majority of our voters have enough courage and wisdom to do what is objectively right for society as a whole rather than act solely for what brings temporary individual pleasure or avoids temporary pain. Once shown the truth, I feel that at least the majority will eventually come to accept it.

I feel deeply sorry for those who must suffer pain at the hands of the law, but this is absolutely no reason to repeal painful laws. If the law is logical and in place for the good of society, any individual pain must be endured. Only if the law is illogical and detrimental to the good of society should it be repealed. Individual pain caused by said law should be irrelevant. And yes I'd feel exactly the same way if I were the individual enduring the pain at the hands of the law. "Pain is no evil, unless it conquers us."

'How women feel' or 'what women want' is as irrelevant to the problem of legal abortion as 'how slavers feel' or 'what slavers want' is to the problem of legal slavery. I feel sorry that so many slavers had to lose the slaves they put so much time into and pay out their hard earned cash in order to have people work in their fields, but this was still the right thing to do. I feel just as sorry (more sorry, actually) that I'm advocating forcing a thirteen-year-old rape victim to bear her rapist's child, but this is clearly the right thing to do for the good of society as a whole, provided the girl's life is not put in imminent danger by doing so. The evil perpetrated upon the girl was the rape. Penalizing the rapist is the right thing to do. Penalizing the girl if she willingly murders the rapist's child in selfishness or fear is also the right thing to do, but this is not a part of the law. I argue that it ought to be, not that it is, and I don't see this as a pointless debate. Laws can be changed by the people in a democratic system.

dk

Its one thing to say you can make a case, its another to make it. About 250,000 soldiers died, brother against brother, in a Civil War to make the case against slavery stand in the US.

JGL53

Well, to continue this ridiculous abortion/slavery analogy, if 250,00 abortionist physicians and/or their help can be murdered, then the antis will win.