Dr Rick

huh? Now what are you babbling about? This doesn't even make sense.

The meanings that matter are the ones of the UNDHR, not whatever you fallaciously insert into the document. This has been one of the reasons that your arguement is so laughable; you are trying to re-interpret the document with your own definitions and wording.

To avoid making this mistake in the future, try sticking with arguing and referencing the actual document and not some make-believe one.

Unless you can find the term "group homo" in the UNDHR, your demand here is just as foolish as the rest of your argument.

As a sidenote, I'm amazed that someone like lwf thinks that he can just insert nonsensical demands and expect anyone to take them seriously.

Maybe it's an attempt to distract us from the way he has once again foolishly argued himself into the same corner: chimpanzees are a member ot the same family as we:

"Family Hominidae, the family that we belong to, is also composed of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans. It is closely related to the other genus of apes, the gibbons, which are in the family Hylobatidae."

Since primates such as chimpanzees belong to the same scientific family as humans, lwf's bizzare argument would force application of the UNDHR to chimpazees as well as fetuses.

Don't be silly; human skin cells are human, and most importantly, they have as much protection under the UNDHR as human fetuses do. How could you possibly believe that pluralizing a fallacious equivocation would make it any more convincing?

More equivocation; the human family that the UNDHR is refering does not include fetuses any more than it includes chimpanzees or human gametes.

Rick

long winded fool

Care to elaborate, or is this just an axiom because you say it is? (I assume you regard it as an axiom since you give no supporting evidence to the claim.) A fetus is both human AND it is a human according to the accepted definition of human as an adjective and the accepted definition of human as a noun. Any other definition is an example of Dr. Rick's equivocation. Claiming a human fetus is anything other than a human being is a false statement, and is arbitrarily inserting a provably inaccurate definition of human being. I have logical proof of my claim. You do not have anything backing up yours. I'm sorry, but if you disagree with such a clearly defined logical conclusion you are simply wrong.

It is clear that we need another lesson in the difference between nouns and adjectives. You know that pluralizing the word human prevents you from fallaciously interpreting it as an adjective. You ARE just being contrary.

Human as an adjective means: "Having human form or attributes as opposed to those of animals or divine beings."

Human as a noun means: "Any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae, specifically of the genus homo. A human being."

A fetus is both human, and a human. A skin cell is human, but it is not a human. This is axiomatic because both words are clearly defined in any dictionary. To proclaim that I am asking you to accept nonsensical definitions and meanings and that this is a fallacy of equivocation is literally projecting your own error onto a logical argument which uses the accepted definitions.

More equivocation; the human family that the UNDHR is refering does not include fetuses any more than it includes chimpanzees or human gametes.

Repetition is not a logical argument Dr. Rick. Until you can prove this statement, you are not convincing anyone. I have proven that it must indeed include fetuses and cannot include chimpanzees. If you think you can prove otherwise, be my guest. I will show you where your error is as I have done for so many pages. Merely proclaiming my argument illogical and my assumptions nonsensical does nothing to refute the actual logic of my argument. You have to make an exact and irrefutable claim. Whenever I accurately defend against your accusations, you abandon trying to explain them and just assume that they're automatically applicable because you think that I must be stupid for claiming that legal abortion is illogical. You often even parrot my own statements, inserting your own terms in an effort to lend credence to your position. Mimicking my syllogisms will not make your postition any more rational. As long as your premises or your conclusions are false, your argument is false. You know this, yet you deny it when you are shown that it clearly applies to your arguments. This shows that you've obviously made up your mind before hand. You have an agenda other than logical discourse. You are defending a position at all costs, regardless of the truth or falsity of the position. You obviously cannot defend your argument. I do not know that mine is true, but I have been able to logically defend it against objective and biased criticism easily. You cannot defend yours without rhetoric. This should be a clear indication, even if you ignore my logic, that your argument is false.

Instead of bringing personal bias to this argument, (which I understand is difficult on such a controversial and potentially emotional issue,) I think that examining the logic objectively will show the truth of the issue. The logic is clear to me, at least. I have no personal investment on the issue and I judge from a detached, objective analysis. Legal abortion is not a rational notion in a free society. Comfortable, temporarily practical given the current social situation, popular, etc. but NOT rational. I have yet to see any evidence at all to the contrary.

long winded fool

Here's one for you to explain to us Dr. Rick. I'll give an example of your selective responses by reposting one of my refutations that you conveniently ignored. Granting for the moment your line of reasoning that "All members of the human family" refers to all members of the family Hominidae, (this was your argument and not mine, remember,) and that we must look at what was clearly meant by the authors of the UDHR instead of just what is stated, let's follow this to its logical conclusion:

All human fetuses were members of the family Hominidae when the UDHR was drafted; therefore all human fetuses were meant to be included in "All members of the human family."

No chimpanzees were members of the family Hominidae when the UDHR was drafted; therefore no chimpanzees were meant to be included in "All members of the human family."

If "all members of the human family" specifically stated in the preamble of the UDHR doesn't refer solely to all hominids as of 1948, and doesn't refer to all members of the human species including fetuses, (which clearly fall under the definition of a living member of the genus homo,) what, pray tell, does it refer to? Not fetuses? Where exactly are they excluded? We've already agreed that "all are born free and equal" cannot specifically exclude or include fetuses from human rights. The preamble specifically includes them regardless of the logic you use, since all human fetuses are both hominids and humans and it specifically states in the UDHR "All members of the human family," does it not?

You have refuted your own already irrational argument.

dk

I apologize for implying abortion causes a callous disregard for life. Its a person's commitment to abortion that causes a callous disregard for life. You answered, a reckless driver that hits a women 9 months pregnant, killing the fetus, was not a crime. Sounds pretty callous to me. Please explain your offense at my statement. Here’s the context from previous posts…
Take this as an opportunity to set the record straight.

Dr Rick

I remember well:

...much better than you.

Good for you, lwf; you're learning.

They weren't defining taxonomy when they wrote it; where do you get the ridiculous notion that a bunch of diplomats and politicians were? They meant for the term to only refer to born humans, which is why they use the term born.

Fetuses weren't born when the UNDHR was written, either. So now we can agree: neither chimpanzees nor fetuses are included in the UNDHR.

Rick

dk

dk: The UN, being a political body of nations, and nations being formed by people, and people being human beings suggests lwf has point. You're performing semantic gymnastics on a tight rope. My question is... Why play word games if you honestly think lwf is wrong?

Dr Rick

Your memory is as poor as lwf's:

dk

I wasn't venturing an opinion, merely providing factual context. At the time it was my opinion there was room for misunderstanding. It was my intent to provide clarity, not pretext. Yet in this last volley you appear to think the UN, at least in part, represents at least one nation of Chimps, Gorillas, and/or Orangutans . Please tell us which nation?

Dr Rick

You appear a bit confused: As I've clearly stated many times before, I do not believe that the UNDHR applies to chimpanzees, but lwf's unfortunate attempt at reasoning would lead to such a bizzare conclusion. Your defense of his argument is equally misguided and also hypocritical.

The only rational conclusions are that the UNDHR does not apply to chimpanzees, and that lwf's inane argument is ridiculous.

Rick

dk

I am dumbfounded by such a contorted fallacious example of propositional logic. Everyone appears to agree the UN DoHR applies to people not monkeys, and that the human family (or Latin Humanae, as in Humanae Vitae) used in the DoHR by the UN pertains to everyone in the human family, not chimps, orgs, or gorillas. The argument commits the fallacy of Converse Accident. You've confused the specific context with the gerneral. The UN DoHR specifically applies the Right to Life to the human family, not the more general case of humans, chimps, orgs and gorillas.

It might be your commitment to abortion that makes this such a confusing issue. Do you have a better explanation?