Dr Rick

Yes, in the UNDHR fetuses can logically be excluded, and are.



Do you think it's reasonable to argue that words other people use can only mean what you say they mean irrespective of what was actually meant?

Do you think its reasonable to repeatedly post irrelevant queries and arguments in an attempt to deflect criticism form your illogical reasoning. The word "hominid" is not in the UNDHR, nor are most words.

To be logical, one needs to be relevant

It is very clear, the UNDHR refers to human beings that have been born.

Obviously, which is why your argument that would lead to their inclusion in the UNDHRR is so ridiculous.



Fetuses are logically excluded. If chimpanzees can be logically excluded (and they can be), then so can fetuses. If it were the case that fetuses couldn't be excluded based upon your bizzare and irrational reasoning, then neither could chimpanzees.

Your irrational argument that fetuses cannot be excluded from the meaning of the UNDHR leads to the inclusion of chimpanzees. That would be an obviously stupid conclusion, so your argument does not make sense and is illogical.

In no way could fetuses have been already born in 1948; your opinion is unadultrated nonsense.

This logic thing is really tough for you, isn't it? You should have realized by now that it is not my intention to argue that chimpanzees are included in the UNHDR, quite the contrary, they are not. Your inane arguement that forces inclusion of fetuses into the UNDHR could equally be applied to chimpanzees, however, so the logical conclusion is not that chimpanzees are covered by the UNDHR, but that your argument is ridiculous.

It is certainly possible that the UNDHR could include fetuses, but not by the absurd argument you have made. We have yet to see a rational arguement on this thread that the UNDHR does include them.


Now you just have to show logically that fetuses could be born anywhere in the UNDHR, which you obviously cannot do.

Rick

Dr Rick

...or grasping reality. He doesn't seem to register that his arguement is entirely unconvincing.

O course, popular support does not make an argument right, but you'd think the poor boy would at least critically re-evaluate his reasoning and methods rather than persist with his foolishness.

Refuting him is easy, btw; if this took any effort or time on my part, I wouldn't waste it

Rick

long winded fool

So you deny then that "all members of the human family" logically includes unborn humans. You also deny that "all humans are born free and equal" doesn't exclude fetuses. Do you see why both of these assumptions are wrong? All unborn humans are human beings according to the accepted definition of each word, therefore the first assumption must logically be wrong. The first article neither includes nor excludes unborn humans according to the rules of logic, therefore the second assumption must logically be wrong. What do you say to this? Appealing to an unaccepted definition is completely arbitrary and not admissible as a loigcal premise, as is saying that the first article doesn't mean what it says.

Refuting him is easy, btw; if this took any effort or time on my part, I wouldn't waste it

You certainly devote a lot of time to reminding everyone else of something that ought to be obvious to any rational person if it is truly the case.

Dr Rick

Good Lord!...your grasp of logic is even worse than originally suspected! (and it was suspected to be pretty bad).

Call me an optimist, but I'll wager that even you, if you think really, really hard and maybe pick up a primer on logic, might be able to spot your fallacy here.

Naw, no worries; it literally only takes a matter of minutes to analyze your gibberish each time. Besides, what is painfully obvious to any rational person frequently escapes you.

Rick

long winded fool

I thought perhaps the double negative would be confusing. The phrase "deny that 'all humans are born free and equal' doesn't exclude..." can also be read "assume that 'humans are born free and equal' excludes..." Either way, you must admit that this position is illogical. The latter sentence is just simpler.

Dr Rick

It neither confusing nor the root of your fallacy (double negatives are clumsy but not fallacious).

...and just as fallacious, lwf; Now can you spot your fallacy? :banghead:

Jinto

He understood you perfectly, it's just that his position is not illogical. You see, there exists a fundamental distinction between humans and fetuses:

Humans have been born.

Fetuses can't possibly be "born free and equal" because fetuses can't possibly have been born: if they had, they'd be babies and not fetuses. Duh.

Now that you have grasped this distinction, I will return you to your regularly scheduled unproductive argument.

And Dr. Rick: You should know better than to assume that your opponent will understand logic.

Dr Rick

I can't help it; like I posted earlier, call me an optimist...


Rick

dk

Hypothetically, in the next score of years someone will likely genetically engineer an artifical womb to nurture a IVF blastula, or clone, to term. At which point the baby will be removed, not born. Since the baby was never born, it would appear it would be the property of the corporation or government that financed the technology. Perhaps the baby might become a state treasure protected by the endangered species act. Since the baby in no sense can be considered born, I gues it becomes a rare zombie thing, not a real person.

By the way, micro surgery are performed on fetuses. The fetus is extracted from the womb, or born, then put back into mom. Has the fetus now become a baby in a women’s womb. hmmmm...

It appears to me you’re pseudo logic needs some work.

infidelchic

Call me an entrepreneur, but just think of the little slimy cells we could sell on a little tiny halfshell. A new fancier French name of course.

chic