Jinto

dk, do you actually have an argument, or are you just going to sit here and make ad hominem attacks?

Dr Rick

Good point, Jinto: the phrase that lwf has been arguing does not appear in the declaration; it is just one more of his fallacious arguments.

If you prefer to call it the false analogy fallacy, that's okay, too...

...except here you contradict yourself as you deny drawing an analogy between the two.

It still doesn't make any sense; you submitted a series of assumptions and then proclaimed, "This is a false assumption."

It is when your arguement depends on shifting the meanings, as it does here:

This is nothing but irrelevancy and equivocation.

Correct, and for the exact same reasons, it ought not be interpreted to include fetuses; congratulations, you have made a rational arguement.

Damn; my irony meter just shorted-out, again.

Which, even if true, has nothing to do with the UNDHR not applying to fetuses.

Rick

dk

Jinto feels its not a crime for a reckless driver to hit a pregnant women and kill the fetus. This demostrats that a callous disregard for human life follows from abortion. The point is quite relevant.

Dr Rick

Fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc (false cause).

long winded fool

An interesting point. Bald eagles have a very large value in law. The crime of destroying an egg of the species bald eagle results in the exact same punishment as the crime of destroying an adult bald eagle, all other things being equal. Human beings have a larger legal value even than eagles. Why should the crime of killing a fetus be less than the crime of killing an adult human, when the crime of killing a less valuable unhatched bald eagle is equivalent to the crime of killing a less valuable adult bald eagle? Making a distinction between egg and bird is fine. If the societal value of the egg increases proportionally to the value of the bird until the value of extremely valuable birds is equivalent to the value of their eggs, logically the eggs or fetuses of life forms with higher value than these birds would have equal value to the adult life forms. We have a legal precedent for undeveloped life forms being equal to developed ones. This isn't the case for the most valuable life forms in our society. Why?

I submitted a series of facts which you accepted and then showed that your conclusion was based on faulty application of logic and the ignoring of necessary premises. To assume that a fetus is not a human being is false because a fetus is inarguably a human being. A fetus may not be a person, but any member of the species homo sapiens sapiens is without a doubt a human being. I can't believe you would deny that assuming a fetus is not a human being is a false assumption. You don't need a degree in logic, you just need to be able to read a dictionary!

Okay, we finally have the root of the problem. Pay close attention:

"ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY" LOGICALLY MUST INCLUDE ALL LIFE FORMS THAT ARE HUMAN. A FETUS IS A LIFE FORM WHICH IS A HUMAN BEING. THEREFORE THE HUMAN FETUS IS INCLUDED IN THE PHRASE "ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY."

"ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY" NEED NOT LOGICALLY INCLUDE ANY LIFE FORMS THAT ARE NOT HUMAN. CHIMPANZEES ARE NOT HUMAN. THEREFORE CHIMPANZEES ARE NOT LOGICALLY INCLUDED IN THE PHRASE "ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY."

This is the entire problem of your claim Dr. Rick. Please show how the above observation is wrong.

This is nothing but irrelevancy and equivocation.

Okay. You're wrong again. You keep throwing out logical fallacies and I keep showing exactly how they do not apply to my argument. From now on, if you don't explain how you feel a fallacy applies to the syllogism given, I'm can only assume you dont' know and are merely trying to sound like you have more authority than me in an attempt to manipulate those who may be less familiar with logical fallacies. This is not a responsible way for a doctor to communicate, Rick. Let's keep this discussion honest, shall we?

dk

I must agree, and am forced to withdraw my comment. Jinto was driven to callous disregard for human life because of his commitment to abortion.

Dr Rick

Again?!, okay, here it is once more:

Nowhere did I claim that fetuses weren't human beings; you just made up that entire long-winded strawman, so that's wrong. You submitted some facts, but then drew faulty conclusions from them, so that's also wrong.

Well, to start, a fallacy in capital letters is still a fallacy. In the first sentence you use the term, human family, and in the second you irrationally and inexplicably shift to human being; this is also wrong.

You're once more shifting definitions (fallacy of equivocation) such as human, human being, and human family to make your argument, which is also wrong. Chimpanzees are members of the human family, too. If fetuses are covered by the UNHDR because they are members of the human family, then so are chimpanzees. Of course, that's not the case, because the definition of human family that you are trying to insert into the UNDHR is wrong. The term human family in the UNDHR means people that have been born as clearly defined in its articles. Your attempt to change the meaning to its scientific usage leads to the inclusion of other primates, including chimpanzees.

Nor must it include everything that is human, such as skin cells, gametes, or fetuses. Perhaps now you can get it; fetuses, gametes, and skin cells are not covered by the UNDHR even though they are "human life forms."

Neither are fetuses. There is no rule of logic that forces inclusion of fetuses into the UNDHR, either.

Try not to get so frustrated, lwf. You're having difficulty grasping these concepts, and I know I sometimes forget that you just don't understand the most basic aspects of logic, but it won't help to get all defensive about it.

Rick

long winded fool

You disputed my labelling of fetus = not human as a false assumption when it is a false assumption.

[B]Well, to start, a fallacy in capital letters is still a fallacy. In the first sentence you use the term, human family, and in the second you irrationally and inexplicably shift to human being; this is also wrong.

:banghead: Ok. I retract the word "being." The dictionary definition of the noun "human" is meant throughout.

You're once more shifting definitions (fallacy of equivocation) such as human, human being, and human family to make your argument, which is also wrong. Chimpanzees are members of the human family, too. If fetuses are covered by the UNHDR because they are members of the human family, then so are chimpanzees. Of course, that's not the case, because the definition of human family that you are trying to insert into the UNDHR is wrong. The term human family in the UNDHR means people that have been born as clearly defined in its articles. Your attempt to change the meaning to its scientific usage leads to the inclusion of other primates, including chimpanzees.

Chimpanzees are NOT members of the human family. No ape is a member of the human family. You are mistaken in this assumption. The members of the human family only include all those species which are of the family Hominidae and of the group homo. Unless you find me a chimpanzee of the family Hominidae and of the group homo you cannot logically use this line of reasoning.

Nor must it include everything that is human, such as skin cells, gametes, or fetuses. Perhaps now you can get it; fetuses, gametes, and skin cells are not covered by the UNDHR even though they are "human life forms."

:banghead: :banghead: You just like being contrary don't you. Ok. I'll add an "s." ALL MEMBERS OF THE HUMAN FAMILY" NEED NOT LOGICALLY INCLUDE ANY LIFE FORMS THAT ARE NOT HUMANS. A skin cell may be human, but it is not A human. Now we're back to the difference between nouns and adjectives.

Neither are fetuses. There is no rule of logic that forces inclusion of fetuses into the UNDHR, either.

False! The set of all things that are A includes anything at all that is an A. It does NOT include anything that is not an A. Now, replace A with the noun human. There is your rule of logic which forces the inclusion of fetuses into the UDHR.

Jinto

dk, if you're going to withdraw your comment, then withdraw your comment, don't say you're going to withdraw it and then repeat it in the next sentence.

Further answering, I have every regard for human life and would like you to explain how I have demonstrated a lack of such. Further, I would like you to support your allegations of a "committment to abortion," because frankly, I have no such committment, and would like to know just where in the hell you got that idea.

And then, once you've realized that your assertations are false and apoligized to me, I would ask you to refrain from relying on ad hominem attacks to further your argument.

Jinto

A fetus may be human, but it is not a human. Now please quit making stupid arguments.