long winded fool

Come on now Dr. Rick! Find me a reputable scientist who calls a chimpanzee a human being and I'll retract my argument.

The members of the family Hominidae (which are:

Homo erectus
Homo soloensis
Homo habilis
Homo sapiens
Homo sapiens sapiens
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis
Homo rhodesiensis )

are human beings. (Taken from the dictionary, by the way. It helps to look at listed examples!) As dk points out chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans were only recently added to the family Hominidae. They didn't become human beings, "human beings" was simply narrowed further to only include animals of the group homo. To be accurate, dictionaries ought to make this distinction, though I suppose they assume most people know the difference between a human being and an ape. Perhaps the definition will one day be narrowed to only include homo sapiens sapiens. Even if this happens, there is still no room for assuming that an animal is anything other that its species at any point in its development. The offspring of two human beings is a human being from conception. It is never at any point a chimpanzee. Human rights currently only apply to homo sapiens sapiens, though if there were any other animals of the group homo around, I'd argue that human rights apply to them as well. Fetuses and all.

And I've already proven that nothing in the articles of the UDHR logically excludes fetuses from human rights, and that the preamble specifically includes them by declaring that inalienable rights apply to "all members of the human family." I've also shown that the purpose of this wide inclusion of all humans is to prevent inequality and discrimination against minorities. To assume inalienable human rights only apply to some human beings is to violate the UDHR and to make the same mistake we've made many times in the past. We must learn from our mistakes. So far, we're just using appeals to personal convenience to shape the laws into giving the majority temorary satisfaction. This is logically no different than legal slavery.

Dr Rick

Now, that's a strawman and a mischaracterisation. Fetuses are human, but your irrational argument has been that they are humans that are protected by the UN Declaration of Human Rights and The US Declaration of Independence.

Your argument is nonsense. The UN UDHR clearly refers only to human beings that have been born, US law defines human beings with the explicit exclusion of fetuses, and the Declaration of Independence doesn't even grant individual rights.

Sheesh, try making a logical argument before posting such a pronouncement. If you view logical arguments as brow-beating, then how are you any different than any zealot vomiting some subjective and unreasonable dogma that you cling to despite ample evidence to the contrary and ignoring any critical analysis of the logic of your beliefs?

That's because you don't make any sense and your arguments are irrational. It is all your choice. You can choose to be honest with yourself despite what your peers might say and possibly take a blow to your ego, or you can cling desperately to self-delusion and retain the acceptance of your similarly dishonest peers. I'm sorry if the blatant irrationality of your illogical arguement offends some pro-lifers, but it remains a contradictory and illogical argument that should not be accepted by a reasoning society.

Rick

Dr Rick

I've already smashed that argument with the irrefutable fact that the articles specifically mentions rights for those that are born, clearly excluding human fetuses.

Your contradicting yourself, again; your argument hinges entirely upon the dictionary definition of human being, but now you're disavowing that stance. By doing so, your whole arguement is trashed by you


Find me a reputable legal scholar that accepts your argument, and I'll retract mine.

Rick

pleasant_darktwist

Well, I must say I have really enjoyed this refresher course on logic: I've almost remembered everything about fallacies. But I digress, I am here to put in my two cents.

First, the main problem in moral philosophy is that at some point it requires an absolute standard. Somehow an act must be right because there is an intransient scale. Thus moral philosophy does require black and whites. I.E. Even when people agree that morality is subjective, it is based in the root thought that there is a absolute standard by which subjectivity is proper.

Which is why abortion is always a hot argument. I agreed with Dr. Rick when he hit on something a few pages back.
He was talking about how determinations of what is a person are arbitrary, then went on to something else. I wish to extrapolate.

The root of the abortion argument is: What is a person? When does a being become a person?

First, these questions must be built on specific criteria, and no one ever agrees on those criteria. If the definition is too loose, a person could come from plants and animals. Too strict, and we get into arguments about euthanasia, for as a person becomes a person, there is a time when they cease to be a person. Thus if it is legal to terminate non-persons, then this extends to fetuses, the aged and infirm, brain damaged or handicapped, or certain birth defects.

Thus the safest route is to say that a fetus is a life when it is capable of living outside of a woman's body. It is a person when it plays a functional role in the development of society. Essentially, this argument is that there is life, humanity, and personhood.

When do the rights of HUMANS (persons or non-persons) kick in? When do they terminate?

If abortion is moral because a fetus is not a person, then it is ok to perform such on other non-persons (brain dead, handicapped, etc.), depending on the specific agreed definition of 'person.'

If a fetus isn't a life, a human or a person, when does it become such? I didn't vote in this poll because the question is irrelevant. Whatever is decided will be arbitrary. And yes, loren, it is black and white.
If we cannot agree that the arbitrary lines we draw for abortion and other moral disagreements are points of essentially 'practical absolutes' there can be no argument because it will always become circular and get bogged down in ambiguity.

Arguments are not one by relegating certain debatable standards to ambiguity. Argue first about what is a person. Then argue about abortion.

Peace.

yguy

How is that safe? If you're wrong, you are advocating murder. If you argue that the fetus' right to life may justly be determined by legal consensus, you open the door to depriving any group of the right to life at the stroke of a pen.

pleasant_darktwist

YGUY SAID:
"How is that safe? If you're wrong, you are advocating murder. If you argue that the fetus' right to life may justly be determined by legal consensus, you open the door to depriving any group of the right to life at the stroke of a pen."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What you have stated is the crux of the argument. I never said I was right. By safe I meant that the definition of life would indeed protect non-persons by defining life as independent existence, i.e. breathing, heart beat, etc.

And I never mentioned legal consensus as a prerequisite in my definitions. No words in my mouth, if you please. Any consensous would be arbitrary, and that is my point. All I am saying is that we are having the wrong argument here. It's not is abortion right/wrong, it is what is a person, and when does a being become one.

Peace.

long winded fool

Why? What does this matter? Why should personhood be a prerequisite for the right to life? Why can't race also be a prerequisite? Or gender? What is more logical about assuming that only "persons" have the right to life compared to only white males have the right to life? Is whether we as persons can relate to only other persons with similar emotions and experiences a reasonable criteria to allow only proven persons the right to life?

According to law, personhood is not required for the inalienable right to life any more than race or gender. You could argue that the human species, in general, is capable of attaining "personhood," but according to the UDHR this is not a specific requirement. Just being a member of the human species is enough. The only non-persons who seem to be exempt from the right to life are human fetuses. What is the logic behind this?

The only absolute I'm assuming here is the law of the land which claims equal rights for all human beings while denying the right to life of some human beings. This is not logical. Therefore legal abortion is not logical. If illogical laws are detrimental to society, then legal abortion is detrimental to society and therefore wrong, assuming that a healthy society is preferable to an unhealthy one.

pleasant_darktwist

yguy:

the definition of when life begins is the core of the argument, you assume that a fetus is a life. What is a life? When does a fetus become a 'life.' BTW: If it would make you more comfortable, when does a fetus become a human, as defined by the UN.

Person adn non-person is not the same as race, creed or color. It is about whether or not one is a being deserving of the rights, like those described by the UN. When do you become human, a life that has rights? Is human the same as person? Nope, one is a physical manifestation, the other is a set level of predications that make one a contributing member of one's world.

And, as I stated above, a declaration of when 'humanhood' begins will be arbitrary, hence the argument is what is a human, and when does a being become one? When does one become a person.

Peace.

Dr Rick

Chimpanzees, which are non-persons, are also exempted from human rights.

Rick

yguy

This was probably meant for lwf, but a fertilized egg is obviously alive at conception, because it isn't dead. The only remotely debatable issue is it's humanity, and genetics and the recent discoveries of prenatal learning argue in favor of the idea that it becomes human well before birth. Even without that, it's obviously human five minutes before birth, so there is no way to draw a line at any particular point and say "now this is a human, but before it wasn't".