Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
It is illegal to knowingly put a child in a dangerous situation.

Correct.

If someone leaves a baby on your doorstep in the wintertime, it is illegal for you to leave it there.

That's sure not my understanding of the law! You don't have to lift a finger to save someone in danger unless you in some way are responsible for the danger.

I am not relying on the dual meaning of human. My argument has always used the word human as a noun, except when clarifying the difference between a noun and an adjective.

If you aren't relying on the dual meaning, why won't you rephrase to avoid it?

The difference between orange and an orange is embarassingly clear to most english-speaking people above the second grade and neither word needs redefinition to avoid confusion.

Context. On the other hand, I've heard someone ask for "an orange" when they meant the color, not the fruit. You do not have the advantage of context in this case.

long winded fool

If the baby is on your property with your knowledge, it is your responsibility if it dies from neglect, whether the danger comes from you or natural elements. You are required to keep the baby from danger if it is under your responsibility, regardless of where the danger comes from. Before it is born, a fetus is under the mother's responsibility.

I will be happy to rephrase my premise to avoid confusion and have done so numerous times with the word homo sapiens sapiens. I will not however use a term which changes my premise. I have shown that "person" is not rephrasing human anymore than "scuba diver" is rephrasing human. Asking for "an orange" when refering to the color of a thing is merely ommiting the implied noun. Orange is still an adjective. Person suffers this same confusion, (which I find to be anything but confusing.) Personal effects are not persons any more than human cells are humans.

Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
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.

Compare to preamble: 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...

This is beating a dead horse. While you are entitled to interpret the word "born" as meaning physical seperation from the mother, the exiting of the birth canal does not confer rights according to this document. The membership of the human family confers rights. When one attains the title of human being, that is, the species designation of homo sapiens sapiens, one has recognized inalienable rights. If you insist that "born" is not meant to be interpereted as birth of species but rather the actual physical seperation from the mother, then you must admit that the UDHR is contradictory. Now you must show whether it is more logical to change the word born to conceived, or to change the words "human family" to "society of persons outside of the womb." I have shown that personhood is nebulous while human being is clear, and this is why the word person is always avoided in laws pertaining to rights. You must also ask the motive for the change. Is it to protect the innocent minority, or increase the rights of the majority? And if increasing the rights of the majority leads to decreasing the rights of the minority, then the purpose of the entire document becomes hypocritical and the declaration itself is merely a false tool for the dishonest to imagine they're being honest.

And this is not assuming the conclusion in the argument. It is assuming the conclusion of a different argument that you may or may not agree with as a premise of this argument. If you disagree with this premise, show logically why the previous argument which arrived at the conclusion used as this premise is not the case. Until you do this, I am free to use such a conclusion as my premise. This is how logical arguments evolve. Whether you'd like to accept them or not is irrelevant. Unless you can show why they are untrue, they are true. Showing the falsity of this premise will refute the argument, simply calling it a fallacy of begging the question will not.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
If the baby is on your property with your knowledge, it is your responsibility if it dies from neglect, whether the danger comes from you or natural elements. You are required to keep the baby from danger if it is under your responsibility, regardless of where the danger comes from. Before it is born, a fetus is under the mother's responsibility.

The key words are "under your responsibility". Someone leaving it on your doorstep doesn't put it under your responsibility.

As for the fetus--you are still assuming it to be a person. As I have said so many times before, conclusion assumed in argument.

I will be happy to rephrase my premise to avoid confusion and have done so numerous times with the word homo sapiens sapiens.

Doesn't really change it. Same flaw.

Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
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.

Compare to preamble: 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...

This is beating a dead horse. While you are entitled to interpret the word "born" as meaning physical seperation from the mother, the exiting of the birth canal does not confer rights according to this document.

Yes, it does. You are being narrow-minded here and assuming your interpretation is correct despite the obvious conclusion that the document does *NOT* grant rights to fetuses.

pilaar

-----------------------------------
long winded fool:
If a man aborts a fetus without the mother's consent, he alone should be charged with murder. If the woman gives consent, they should share the murder charge. If the woman acts alone she ought to take sole responsibility. The hand that causes the embryo's death should always be charged with murder as long as he or she is proven guilty of willful destruction of an innocent human being. This is both logical and objective. Doctors who perform abortions should all face murder charges, and the women who hire them should be thought of as hiring a professional to kill a human being. Fathers who support mothers who do this should be charged with aiding and abetting murder at the very least. All of course assuming my argument is sound.
-------------------------------------

Ok, you are willing to have it fair and I respect that. How this fairness could be enforced by lawis another matter.

I also still fail to see how the embryo is a separate human being as the cells themselves don't recognise this and can in some cases merge to form one instead of two. But I can see where you are coming from and you are making a stand for what you believe in, I can respect that, even though I don't agree with your stand.

pilaar

long winded fool

Then I will agree to disagree. No one is under any obligation to agree with my argument, and I respect the pro-choice whether I agree with their logic or not. In my opinion the argument is simple truth and there is really nothing "controversial" about legal abortion at all. I think the answer is plain and contained in the conclusion of my argument. I feel an obligation to be honest with myself so that I may not mislead others. I have to admit, if I disagreed with the morality of legal abortion in the United States as fervently as I argue against the logic of it, I wouldn't be living here.

Loren Pechtel
The key words are "under your responsibility". Someone leaving it on your doorstep doesn't put it under your responsibility.

As for the fetus--you are still assuming it to be a person. As I have said so many times before, conclusion assumed in argument.

There are only so many times I can refute this. This is a straw man by definition. "Person" is a term you have inserted into my argument and falsely assumed to be necessary criteria for rights. The criterion of personhood is an assumption based entirely on subjective morality as opposed to the criterion of human being, which is based on objective law.

Yes, it does. You are being narrow-minded here and assuming your interpretation is correct despite the obvious conclusion that the document does *NOT* grant rights to fetuses.

I think maybe we ought to agree to disagree as well since this discussion hasn't gone anywhere for several posts now. We have made many laps and I don't see that either of us is willing to abandon our arguments. My argument is on the table. While it is my opinion that no other argument has refuted its logic, you may be inclined to think differently. Since you won't tell me why you disagree with my logic but keep insisting that you do and that my erroneous logic is seemingly so obvious that it needs no logical refutation, I can think of nothing else to add. If you sincerely feel that you have logically refuted my argument, then perhaps you ought to do some personal reflection on how honest you are being with yourself. Believe me, I do this all the time. There is only one kind of logic. Everything else is not logical.

Will you accuse me of being the Daedalus who makes your words walk away, not perceiving that there is another and far greater artist than Daedalus who makes them go round in a circle...?
-Socrates

dk

Excellent point long winded. When the Right to Life is narrowed selectively every other human right is denigrated generally.

Darren S.

No, you merely keep repeating the unsupportable assertion that just because something has a unique genetic code which identifies it as homo sapiens sapiens, it deserves protection under the law. You have offered no evidence that this is true, and in fact you've claimed that no evidence is needed.

You operate in the same way creationists do. You pompously and aggressively demand objective standards and proof from everyone else as a means to avoid having to support your own position with the same.

Darren S.

In light of the fact that the US Constitution limits its protections against the deprivation of life, liberty and property to persons BORN in the United States, the contention that your position is based on 'objective law' is especially amusing. The Constitution always defines a person with rights as a person BORN in the United States.

"Amendment XIV

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

But I guess its not 'objective law' because it doesn't support your position.

long winded fool

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was adopted over 50 years after this amendment, broadens persons born to members of the human family. Amendment XIV still stands as true. All persons born or naturalized have said rights, however nowhere does this specifically exclude non-persons or unborn humans, though it may not address them. The UDHR specifically includes all human beings in its criteria for inalienable rights, thereby addressing all unborn humans, and therefore this amendment, adopted well over a century ago, is not a valid premise to assume that all unborn humans are not included in the inalienable rights of human beings when taken into context with the rest of the law, and my conclusion of the contradictory nature of abortion laws still stands.

The evidence for the argument is on this board, probably repeated several times for clarification. You can ignore it and declare me refuted, or you can address it. My argument is not harmed by accusations of irrationality; it is harmed by pointing out the error in its logic. Accusing me of being illogical without showing where my fault is merely points out the errors in your own logic. Since my argument stands as true until logically refuted and since you disagree with it, the burden of proof is on you to support your own position and thereby show mine to be in error.

Dr Rick

Setting aside for the moment your attempt to redefine common words such as born to mean "birth of species..."

Part of the flaw in your argument is that you've taken the law out of context to assert your false premises There is no evidence that the authors of either the Constitution or the UN UDHR intended to ban abortions, so there is no reason to accept your word play or idiosyncratic interpretation. In the UN UDHR, the authors clearly spell-out what rights they wish to confer and the limits of government powers. They explicitly proscribe arbitrary detention, seizure of property, slavery, etc. so if the document was intended to prohibit abortions, there is no reason it wouldn't explicitly say so, as well. Since that was not the authors intentions, injecting your interpretation of what they meant as an argument against the legality of abortion is irrational.

You really don't understand the law. The articles incorporated into a legal document such as the Constitution or the UN UDHR are what specify it's reach, governance and limitations, not the preamble

Your false assertions, equivocation of words, and idiosyncratic interpretations have been soundly refuted on this thread. You may chose to ignore it, but your irrational argument has been thrashed. Neither the UN UDHR nor the US Constitution ban abortion, nor were they intended to; insisting that they can somehow be interpreted that way is foolish.

Rick