Dr Rick

It specifies all humans that are born:

Article 1 "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood."

lwf has been fallaciously harping on the preamble of the UNDHR which says, in part:

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..."

...and claiming that it must "logically" extend to fetuses because they are part of the human family even though the UNDHR specifies those that have been born in it's articles and never mentions the unborn, fetuses, or chimpanzees.

His claim is based upon the insertion of the "scientific" definition of human family irrespective of what the articles say about being "born" and their complete silence on the issue of abortion or fetuses.

Nonsense; lwf has argued himself into a corner, but can't admit it: 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 argument forces application of the UNDHR to chimpazees as well as fetuses.

Obviously, most reasonable people will realize that the UNDHR does not apply to either chimpanzees or fetuses and conclude that lwf's argument is patently absurd.

...especially if you're a chimp...

Rick

JGL53

Dr. Rick, I jumped in debate at the end and have not read all the early posts. Has anyone yet asked the "the fetus is a person" crowd if they believe that stepping on and crushing an acorn is killing an oak tree, uh, logically speaking?

long winded fool

We've been through this. The statement "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," says nothing of unborn human beings. No logical conclusions can be drawn from this article. All human being walk the earth free and equal in dignity and rights too, but not all human beings walk the earth and not all human beings are born. "Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world..." means that ALL and not just some human beings have inherent dignity and equal and inalienable rights.

Humans and chimpanzees share their order of primates, but the great apes which include chimpanzees are of the family Pongidae. I don't know why there are two different opinions on which family the great apes belong to, but so far all references I've checked besides yours list them as Pongidae, the latest being 2002. But even this is irrelevant. Assuming they are of the same family, I do not think that the connotation of human family the way it is presented in the UDHR means all hominids, though one might choose to interpret it that way. Since chimpanzees have never had human rights, it is logical to assume that "all members of the human family" has always meant all human beings, and not all hominids. While human beings are members of the family Homonidae, this is not the "human family." This is the hominid family. Humans are members of the hominid family. Not all hominids are humans. All fetuses of our species are humans. I think you are really stretching it thin here Dr. Rick.

Dr Rick

Your right; just like the rest of the UNDHR, it says nothing about the unborn, including fetuses. :banghead:

uhhh...it can be logically concluded from this article that it states "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

It can be logically concluded from this article that it means "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights."

It can be logically concluded from this article that it doesn't state "All fetuses are unborn free and equal in dignity and rights."

Logic really isn't all that hard; it's possible that you just don't know what a "logical conclusion" is...

...it's quite likely that you don't know what a "logical conclusion" is...

...it's obvious that you don't know what a "logical conclusion" is.



Your failure to comprehend why there is a difference (the reason, btw, is that definitons are not absolutes) is part of what dooms your irrational argument. The term family does not mean the exact same thing irrespective of usage and context. Grasp this simple concept, and you will begin to understand why your argument is so uncompelling and illogical.

Rick

long winded fool

So then, if definitions are not absolutes, why is it that, according to you all human beings in the UDHR can be understood to absolutely exclude fetuses by the first article, when fetuses are not expressly excluded in the first article, and when it can be proven with any dictionary that fetuses are irrefutably human beings? You are taking a word (human being,) fallaciously redefining it to your liking (only born homo sapiens,) and then accusing me of doing this without any explanation other than to say it is obvious and irrational.

Nowhere are fetuses expressly excluded in the UDHR. You have already conceded this with the help of some others, if I recall. Are you claiming that "all members of the human family" need not include fetuses, or that it must include chimpanzees? And how is this related to my supposed failure to understand the usage and context of a definition?

I have logically taken apart both the preamble (last post) and the first article (way back when you first tried to use it to prove that fetuses are not included in the UDHR) and shown clearly what the logical contexts of both are, and clearly addressed all concerns you brought to the table. You can disagree, but without a clear explanation as to what logical variable I've failed to take into account, you can prove nothing. Don't pepper me with logical fallacies, show exactly where and how they apply. Imagine I'm unaware of the concept of logical fallacies and Latin phrases and logically walk me through my errors. So far, all you've done is reference a general area of my argument, thrown out a number of reasonable sounding fallacies, waited for me to refute them and then attacked another area in the same way with similar fallacies, claiming I've proven nothing. There is no way to learn anything new if your desire is only to win, Dr. Rick. If for some reason you can't bring yourself to honestly concede, then just stop reading my posts and no one will ever know. When you ask questions, I can only assume that you want the answers. When you post on a thread, I can only assume you're looking for an honest response. If you want answers, you have to be prepared for some of them to be uncomfortable. If you don't want to risk facing uncomfortable answers, please don't ask questions that you've already decided must have comfortable answers.

See, I can be logical when I try.

Dr Rick

The question is, why does it have to "absolutely" include fetuses?
The answer is, "it doesn't"

Fetuses are not absolutely included as lwf has insistently and irrationally argued; that's why his argument is so illogical. He's attempting to define terms in the UNDHR in an ad hoc manner to suit his arguments, but when confronted with the absurdity of his reasoning (because it leads to the inclusion of primates such as chimpazees in the UNHDR), insists that only the terms he chooses are to be interpreted in the manner he prescribes.



Just as it can be "proven" that chimpazees are members of the "human family." lwf is arguing for an inconsistent application of the rules he has arbitrarily chosen when faced with the irrationality of his position.

lwf is taking a term (human family,) fallaciously redefining it to his liking (only members of the human family of his choosing), and then accusing everyone with whom he disagrees of doing this without any explanation other than to say it is obvious and "logical"



Nowhere are fetuses expressly included in the UDHR. lwf has already conceded this with the help of some others, if I recall. Is he claiming that "all members of the human family" must always include fetuses, or that it must always exclude chimpanzees? He's failing to understand the usage and context of a definition.

I have logically taken apart both the preamble (last post) and the first article (way back when lwf first tried to use it to prove that fetuses are included in the UDHR) and shown clearly what the logical contexts of both are, and clearly addressed all concerns he brought to the table. lwf can disagree, but without a rational explanation as to why his arbitrary applications of definitions must be applied only when it suits his purpose, he can prove nothing. He's peppered his posts with logical fallacies and persists in doing so even when shown exactly where and how they apply. lwf is unaware of the concept of logical fallacies and persists in repeating his errors. So far, all he's done is reference a dictionary, thrown out a number of unreasonable fallacies, waited for someone to refute them and then attacked another area in the same way with similar fallacies, claiming he's made a "logical" argument. There is no way for him to learn anything if his desire is only to win. For some reason, he can't bring himself to honestly concede, so he should just stop posting and try to learn what he should know. When he asks questions, we can only assume that he wants the answers. When he posts on a thread, we can only assume he's looking for an honest response, but he's repeatedly shown us that he is not. If he wants answers, he has to be prepared for some of them to be uncomfortable. If he doesn't want to risk facing uncomfortable answers, he shouldn't ask questions that he's already decided must have comfortable answers.

Let's hope that lwf can try to be logical.

long winded fool

Ok, can you give an example of a case where "all members of the human family" can logically exclude human fetuses? Do you think that it's reasonable to say that not all members of the human family are humans? Isn't it correct to say, "all members of the hominid family are not humans?" Do you think the UDHR was referring to "human family" in the sense of the general family of hominids that human beings happen to belong to, or as the collective species of all human beings. There is a distinct difference, and I think it is irrational to assume the first. Chimpanzees are not human beings. In any case, by what logic could we exclude fetuses from "all members of the human family?" Chimpanzees could logically be excluded due to their lack of the classification of "human." Fetuses cannot. Again, were it worded "hominid family" you'd be correct. Since it says "human family" your argument is illogical. It is incorrect to define the word "human" in this context solely as "hominid," since not all hominids are human.

If you still want to dispute the context and usage of "human family" however, how about this: As of 1948, the year the UDHR was adopted, the only members of the family Hominidae were also of the group homo. Human beings. If you insist on speculating on what they probably meant given the context in the UDHR so that your opinion could be as valid as mine, even this line of reasoning shows that your chimpanzee comparison is not logical. In no way could chimpanzees have been included in the term "human family." Now you just have to show logically that fetuses could be expressly excluded anywhere in the UDHR, which you obviously cannot do.

infidelchic

I love the way various types of fish eggs are eaten and called Escargot. (murderers)

Opera Nut

Caviar is fish eggs, specifically sturgeon eggs. They're real salty. They don't do anything for me as far as taste.

Escargot is snails, which are invertebrates of the Order (I think) Mollusca.

We eat chicken eggs that are unfertilized all the time.

Dr. Rick, I want voting rights for my dogs. My dogs have all been far more loving and kind and loyal than any fundies I have known.

It does seem that LWF has a problem understanding the word "born".

infidelchic

Oh darn, I've slipped up those slippery things again!