Dr Rick

That is the fallacy of presumption. The law must define to whom those rights belong; it does not have to "account" for anything. The articles of the UN UDHR specifically assign those rights to those that have been born, which excludes fetuses. The document mentions human beings in the preamble and defines those human beings in the articles as those that have been born. It is fallacious equivocation to insert an unintended definition, and another fallacy to make that definition a premise that is the intended conclusion.

If either the UN UDHR or the US Constitution were intended to extended rights to fetuses, then they would specify in their articles that rights are conferred upon conception, and not when one is born. The preambles of neither the US Constitution nor the UN UDHR define specific rights or their limits; only the articles of each does.

This is another logical fallacy known as a strawman. Pro-choice advocates do not argue that fetuses have rights equal to other people. You are the one claiming equal rights for fetuses and others; that is your assertion.

This is the fallacy of many questions in which one reduces a complex issue to an oversimplified one. The abortion issue is a complex legal, social, and moral issue; it is not an exercise in logic.

Even if you had an argument that wasn't fallacious, you still could not logically "prove" your position. A logical proof is based upon "premises," and since pro-lifers and pro-choicers have differing sets of premises (values), neither can "logically" prove their position to the other.

Your attempt to logically prove your position is doubly doomed, not just because it is impossible to logically prove something to another without agreed-upon premises, but also because your reasoning is twisted by too may fallacies; the one above is the fallacy of false analogy.

Rick

Talulah

I voted 3 months, but after reading the thread, my opinion is closer to brain functioning.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
What is a complex brain and how do you know if you have one? Is there a certain point that a brain must reach before it can be designated complex?

When fully developed, a person's brain is capable of taking responsibility for it's actions and planning for the future.

If it is a gradual development, then are less intelligent people less human and more animal than more intelligent people? If we find out that a bottle-nosed dolphin's brain is more complex than we previously thought, is there a danger that dolphins could become human beings?

It does not appear that they have anything approaching our level of brain. Should we be horrribly wrong in this, though, they could be people. Again, the use of the word "human" clouds the issue.

If a human being's brain doesn't even function properly enough to feed him, can we call him an animal and revoke his human right to life for our convenience?

No. Just because we can't currently fix it doesn't mean it isn't there. So long as conciousness exists it qualifies.

The presence of a complex brain does not solely distinguish man (an animal) from beast (an animal.) Though it is true that human beings have more complex brains than any known animal, it is not strictly this quality which makes us human beings.

It's the *ONLY* feature possessed only by humans.

Walking fully erect also distinguishes humans from animals. Since infants do not walk fully erect, are they considered non-human animals?

Penguins.

A human being with no brain is still a human being.

1) You have already said otherwise--note the example of the guy who was decapitated. Are you saying humanity lies in some other portion of the head other than the brain?!

2) Once the brain no longer functions the law considers a person dead--otherwise pulling the plug would be murder.

long winded fool

You cannot base a refutation on a fallacious assertion. I have proven logically that the UDHR does NOT specifically assign rights to those that have been born. If you can show me what my false premise was, then you can refute me. Declaring my conclusion to be false, and that therefore using it as a premise is invalid, is simply being contrary. Denying my argument for the sake of denial.

If either the UN UDHR or the US Constitution were intended to extended rights to fetuses, then they would specify in their articles that rights are conferred upon conception, and not when one is born. The preambles of neither the US Constitution nor the UN UDHR define specific rights or their limits; only the articles of each does.

By that logic the mentally retarded are also obviously excluded in human rights, therefore it should not be murder to kill one.

This is another logical fallacy known as a strawman. Pro-choice advocates do not argue that fetuses have rights equal to other people. You are the one claiming equal rights for fetuses and others; that is your assertion.

If it was a strawman, it is not anymore! That was exactly what I said. Pro-choice do not argue that fetuses have rights equal to other humans. Therefore they think inalienable human rights are not equal. This directly contradicts the UDHR. There has not been any argument that explains this, save the incorrect interpretation of the word "born" as a criterion for rights. There has only been assertions that it this not contradictory.

This is the fallacy of many questions in which one reduces a complex issue to an oversimplified one. The abortion issue is a complex legal, social, and moral issue; it is not an exercise in logic.

I do agree that legal abortion is not ruled by logic. My argument is that the complexities of the abortion issue stem from ignorance and do not exist, and that all laws should be ruled by logic and nothing else. Slavery used to be a complex legal, social, and moral issue. Now it is a very simple and easily solved issue. If equal human rights, then no slavery. Abortion is no different. When you apply logic, the solution presents itself. If you do not like the solution and thus decide to throw logic away, you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself.

Even if you had an argument that wasn't fallacious, you still could not logically "prove" your position. A logical proof is based upon "premises," and since pro-lifers and pro-choicers have differing sets of premises (values), neither can "logically" prove their position to the other.

If I can show your conclusion does not logically follow from your premises, or that your premises themselves are based on false conclusions, I can prove your position is not logical. If I identify an argument in which the premises are true and the conclusion logically follows from them, I can prove this position to any critically thinking individual. My argument so far has been impervious to false accusations of fallacies. I have shown logically that all attempted refutations have failed. You simply assert the opposite with no logical argument.

Your attempt to logically prove your position is doubly doomed, not just because it is impossible to logically prove something to another without agreed-upon premises, but also because your reasoning is twisted by too may fallacies; the one above is the fallacy of false analogy.

I'd be willing to accept this as a false analogy if you can show WHY it's a false analogy. I try to explain my propositions logically. You always assume yours need no explanation. It is possible to prove something to another without agreed upon premises if both are logical and examine each other's premises objectively. I have shown to you that yours are not valid. You have not shown to me that mine are invalid, you have declared them to be. Without proof you won't convince me. Apparently I won't convince you even with logical proof. Your premises are false. If they weren't you'd be able to show this, like I've shown mine. Until you can logically prove otherwise, if you are not convinced then you are not using your ability to reason.

Nickle

This was answered in your quote of me.

Exactly what constitutes personhood and when it happens is not very easily definable. It occurs over a period of time during development. Even defining what a complex brain is is hard to do. But we do know we start off with no complex brain and end up with a person. And that transformation does not happen until well after the first trimester.

We may not know when a "mind" is formed or exactly what makes up a mind, but since it obviously doesn't happen in the first trimester, who gives a rat's ass. I'll leave it up to neurologists.

We may be left with a gray area when trying to determine when a human is a person, but it is of no concern to pro-choicers. Early pregnancy is still in the stark white.

Also, just because you have a black and white definition of when a human has rights, doesn't mean it makes since. So, when the chromosomes line up, it has no rights, but when they mix, it has rights, right? Or is it during the first sign of cleavage?

Dr Rick

It's been done ad nauseum; here it is restated, again:

You start with a false premise. You claim that the UN UDHR protects fetuses; however, the articles of the document and the actions of the UN, which include offering abortion services through the World Health Organization and never having passed resolutions or taken actions consistent with your contention, contradict your presumption. The only evidence offered to substantiate your premise is a fallacy of equivocation based upon your insertion of a definition of "human being" that is not consistent with either the rest of the document or the actions of the UN. The only way to accept this part of your argument requires accepting yet another, even more absurd assumption: that you know better what the UN means by its wording than the UN itself.

Your error is compounded because the term you are equivocating with is found in the preamble, but not the articles of the UN UDHR. It has been pointed-out in prior posts, but perhaps it is worth repeating for your sake, that the articles and not the preamble define the governance, scope, and reach of a contract or legal document such as the UN UDHR.

We know that the UN did not intend to protect fetuses because, in addition to acting in a manner not consistent with an intention to protect fetuses, the articles clearly use the words "born," "men," "women," and "children," as they specify what rights are intended, but never use the words "conceived," "fetuses," "zygotes," or "embryoes."

It only gets worse. After stating your premise, which is evidently false, and by no means accepted for the sake of your argument; you exercise a fallacy of circulus in demonstrando by turning your premise into a conclusion: "the UN UDHR protects fetuses, therefore, it is only logical that it protects fetuses."
Re-stating your unaccepted and demonstratably false premise as a conclusion is not a convincing argument, and it most certainly is not "logical."

Rick

Dr Rick

Very well done; you simultaneously sum-up and expose lwf's position for what it is: just an arbitrary opinion that is no more logical than anyone else's.

:notworthy Rick

long winded fool

So then, any creature with this ability has a complex brain and is therefore a human being, and conversely any without it is not? Does this follow scientifically?

It does not appear that they have anything approaching our level of brain. Should we be horrribly wrong in this, though, they could be people. Again, the use of the word "human" clouds the issue.

Again you make this assertion with nothing to back it up. The use of the word person is quite obviously what clouds the issue. You are making the same mistake Dr. Rick is making when you assert that, because all persons have inalienable rights, personhood is the quality which gives them these rights. (All scuba divers have inalienable rights too. It is not because they are scuba divers.) "All are born free and equal in dignity and rights," does not necessarily preclude the unborn from having these rights. "...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," DOES necessarily include the unborn in these rights. A portion of the law must be taken into context with the rest of the laws in order to be properly understood. When abortion laws are taken into context with equal human rights, they can be understood to be logically unsound.

No. Just because we can't currently fix it doesn't mean it isn't there. So long as conciousness exists it qualifies.

But dolphins are conscious. Even though they vary in intelligence, they're all dolphins. Chimpanzees are thought to have a similar level of intelligence, though they are 100% chimpanzees and 0% dolphins. Therefore, intelligence is not what separates species.

It's the *ONLY* feature possessed only by humans.

It is not sound to take a feature possessed by a single species and declare that this feature and no other determines the species and that all without this feature are not included in the species.

LWF
Walking fully erect also distinguishes humans from animals. Since infants do not walk fully erect, are they considered non-human animals?

LP
Penguins.

Though all birds have two legs, they are not fully upright. At least not as upright as humans. Plus, penguins don't walk, they waddle.

Do you see the arbitrary nature of these assertions? How do you judge that a dolphin's brain is not complex enough for personhood? By comparing it to a human's brain? If so, then now it is you who are guilty of assuming your conclusion in your argument. You can set the level of personhood wherever is convenient for your argument. In addition, you've failed to address the fact that personhood is not legally what grants rights. The condition of being a member of the human family grants rights. And embryos are members of the human family.

LWF
A human being with no brain is still a human being.

LP
1) You have already said otherwise--note the example of the guy who was decapitated. Are you saying humanity lies in some other portion of the head other than the brain?!

2) Once the brain no longer functions the law considers a person dead--otherwise pulling the plug would be murder.

I said a headless cadaver is not a person. It IS a human being. The quality of being a human being does not lie anywhere in the head. It lies in the species. If a life form is determined scientifically to be a homo sapiens sapiens, it is a human being with rights. A cadaver is not entitled to the right to life because it is impossible to grant it the right to life. And without life, no other rights apply.

Luckily, (or unluckily) personhood is not required for the inalienable right to life, though many seem to mistakenly think that it is. With a logical argument on your side, I will happily and immediately change my position and agree with this. Appeals to my emotions about women's rights will never get me to agree.

We may not know when a "mind" is formed or exactly what makes up a mind, but since it obviously doesn't happen in the first trimester, who gives a rat's ass. I'll leave it up to neurologists.

Because it is murder to kill a human being, the law should give a rat's ass. And anyone who would rather have a logical and rational set of laws as opposed to illogical and contradicting laws also ought to give a rat's ass.

We may be left with a gray area when trying to determine when a human is a person, but it is of no concern to pro-choicers. Early pregnancy is still in the stark white.

Also, just because you have a black and white definition of when a human has rights, doesn't mean it makes since. So, when the chromosomes line up, it has no rights, but when they mix, it has rights, right? Or is it during the first sign of cleavage?

My black and white definition is the definition of the dictionary and the law. When a human becomes a person is irrelevant. When a developing life form becomes a human is the concern. The question to ask is, "When do individually divinding cells cease to be a part of the mother and become a living example of a homo sapiens sapiens?" Since the law delcares that all living homo sapiens sapiens have the inalienable right to life, it is at this point when destroying the life form becomes equal to revoking the right to life from a human being. And most biologists will tell you that it is WELL before the very first few days of pregnancy when a zygote becomes the species homo sapiens sapiens. (I believe that it is never not a homo sapiens sapiens, but I'm no biologist.) After that, it's human and it has rights according to the UDHR. Human rights currently can be forcibly revoked to protect the lives of others, as punishment for a crime, or when the life is not salvagable without artificial support and not able to decide for itself. They cannot be revoked for the motive of personal convenience of another, except for some particular humans which they can. But human rights are still equal. This makes no sense and cannot, so far as I can see, be understood rationally.

Dr Rick

Quote:

[If either the UN UDHR or the US Constitution do not protect fetuses, than] the mentally retarded are also obviously excluded in human rights, therefore it should not be murder to kill one.

A fallacious ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion. Nothing in my refutation of your false premises, your erroneous interpretations of legal documents, your attempts to equivocate, or your circular reasoning supports this contention.

We do not believe that rights are equal for both fetuses and other humans. We do not accept your false premise that they are equal, and you have provided nothing but strawmen, word-play, and other fallacies to try to convince us that they are.

To avoid continuing to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, consider arguing why you think fetuses should be granted equal rights rather than perseverating with your fallacious reasoning based upon your false premises.

It may be unwise for you to try and equivocate with the word born, as your attempts to define other terms used by the UN to mean something they did not has already been exposed and falsified. Making another equivocation fallacy is not likely to help your position.

Oh good, you realize that complex issues of morality and law are really complex and cannot be reduced to exercises in logic...

...or maybe not.



Another fallacy, this one a false analogy; could you please expain why you equate pregnant women with slave-owners?

Maybe, but you haven't yet. Your attempt to apply logic to values doesn't work because; 1) values do not lend themselve well to logic, and 2) you do not employ logic in your arguments, anyways.

Before you make that conclusion, you should first present a logical proof and not a garbled collection of false premises and fallacies.

Another strawman; I never said anything of the sort.



Another false analogy

It certainly gives no justification for assuming the reverse.

You make this assertion is spite of all the evidence, the articles of the UN UDHR, and the actions of the UN that contradict your claim. You really do appear to believe that you understand what the UN was saying better than the UN itself.

Now you're arguing that we must take the concept of equal rights out of context and apply it to fetuses even though equal rights do not apply to fetuses.

Yes, don't you?



Now you've contradicted youself, again this time with another ad hoc argument: you previously claimed that rights arise from "being a human being." Now you are changing it with the limitation that "without life, no other rights apply." Your previous argument would have allowed a right to privacy for cadavers because they are "human beings" by your definition; your new changes allow extensions of rights to skin cells, individual organs, and spermatozoa.

You are arguing that we should substitute the current law for your illogical and contradictory position that grants fetuses, cadavers, and kidneys full human rights, that substitutes the UN UDHR for your beliefs, and that is based upon your false premises re-stated as conclusions.



Another false statement; if what you said was correct, abortion would be illegal. Abortion is not illegal, so your equivocations are not correct.



You just can't stop contradicting yourself; you claim that human rights are "inalienable" and then proceed to tell us when you believe that they are not!

Human rights arise from values and are expressed in our laws. You cannot use logic to extend them for purposes for which they were not intended. Human rights cannot be extended to fetuses by an exercise in logic. They can only be extended by changes in values and/or the law.

Rick

long winded fool

You have provided a convenient breakdown of your position, so I will clearly and concisely refute each aspect of your argument. Please respond accordingly as to why my explanations are logically unsound. Do not lump them all together and declare them fallacious, as you will force us back around this circle yet again. Don't make me speculate on your motives. You'll like that even less.

If either the UN UDHR or the US Constitution were intended to extended rights to fetuses, then they would specify in their articles that rights are conferred upon conception, and not when one is born. The preambles of neither the US Constitution nor the UN UDHR define specific rights or their limits; only the articles of each does.

Where does the UN specify that the mentally retarded have rights? Is it because they are human beings? But they aren't mentioned by name. Should they still be included on the basis of the fact that they are humans? If so, is it logical that ALL humans can be included under the word human beings?

We do not believe that rights are equal for both fetuses and other humans. We do not accept your false premise that they are equal, and you have provided nothing but strawmen, word-play, and other fallacies to try to convince us that they are.

I never said they are. I agree that rights are not equal for both fetuses and other humans. This was never my premise. My premise was that rights are not equal for both fetuses and other humans. My conclusion was why this is contradictory to already established law which claims that they should be. Clear enough?

To avoid continuing to repeat the same mistakes over and over again, consider arguing why you think fetuses should be granted equal rights rather than perseverating with your fallacious reasoning based upon your false premises.

Fetuses should be granted equal rights because they are human beings and all human beings have equal inalienable rights... except fetuses. What is the motive for excluding these particular human beings from having inalienable rights? Convenience. This is a dangerous and completely arbitrary precedent to set. It is a precedent that was supposed to have been eliminated with the abolition of slavery and the use of the word "human being" instead of "person."

It may be unwise for you to try and equivocate with the word born, as your attempts to define other terms used by the UN to mean something they did not has already been exposed and falsified. Making another equivocation fallacy is not likely to help your position.

If the UN didn't mean that all humans have inalienable human rights, why did they say this and make it law? If the UN meant persons, why didn't they say persons? I can tell you why they didn't and why they still don't: because person is nebulous and can be applied to some human beings and not others. If slaves are not persons, then slaves would not have inalienable rights. To assume the UN meant something other than what they said is not logical. Even if the UDHR was drafted by a single individual and he told us that he meant for unborn humans not to have rights, the law would still need to be reworded and he would still have to provide a logical explanation as to why he assumed fetuses do not need to be assigned rights, and how it could rationally work with the rest of the UDHR. Since no one has been able to explain how it could logically work, (never mind the fact that they assume that it does) the only conclusion that I can come to is that it does NOT logically work.

Oh good, you realize that complex issues of morality and law are really complex and cannot be reduced to exercises in logic...

...or maybe not.

I'll help you out here. No I do not believe that complex issues of morality and law cannot be reduced to exercises in logic. In fact, I find it curious that you do. I believe that legal abortion has no basis in logic. If you agree, as this statement seems to indicate, then I've won the argument. I have proven that legal abortion is not logical and you have agreed. Your response is that it doesn't need to be logical because it is accepted morality. If your friends told you to jump off a bridge, would you also do this? Morality not based on logic is religion/superstition/tradition/intimidation and all those things that science and law respect as the human response to fear and insecurity, but ignore as ways of determining objective truth. Since religion has no place in law in this country, abortion ought to be outlawed since legal abortion according to your argument is apparently moral but not logical and illegal abortion is logical but not moral. You can't legislate morality. You can legislate logic.

Another fallacy, this one a false analogy; could you please expain why you equate pregnant women with slave-owners?

Not all pregnant women are analogous to slave owners. Pregnant women who feel they have the right to take the life of their child for the sake of their own convenience are analogous to slave owners in the sense that they feel their right to convenience overrides another human's right to life. (Actually, slaves had the right to life, though punishment for killing one was less severe.) So in essence, the pro-choicers are worse than pro-slavery people because those for slavery are only eliminating the inalienable right to freedom from slaves. The pro-choice eliminate the very lives of their children. A right which, when revoked, carries a stiffer penalty than revoking the right to freedom. And I base this on the premises that the pro-choice support legal abortion, and that the UDHR grants all members of the human family the right to life. Since the drafters of the law don't practice this, the second part of my argument is that the UN's actions are contradictory and continue to be contradictory. To leave this unresolved is to undermine the power of the law.

Maybe, but you haven't yet. Your attempt to apply logic to values doesn't work because; 1) values do not lend themselve well to logic, and 2) you do not employ logic in your arguments, anyways.

I have. You don't have to admit it, but until you can successfully identify my error, my argument holds true.
1) Any value that doesn't lend itself completely to logic is a false value based on nothing but personal feeling. It is impossible to learn or grow intellectually without logic. If you have a belief not applicable to logic, you are not growing. You are either stagnating, or slipping away from truth and reality.
2) I do not employ your idea of logic. Your idea of logic is not true logic. You think logic can be ignored and still lead you to truth.

Before you make that conclusion, you should first present a logical proof and not a garbled collection of false premises and fallacies.

Identify a single fallacy or false premise. I have shown that so far all of your accusations have been baseless. Calling a valid premise and a sound conclusion fallacious does not refute me. I am sorry if my argument appears garbled, but I can't elaborate if you don't ask specific questions.

Another strawman; I never said anything of the sort.

To say that "All are born free and equal in dignity and rights," means that all unborn are not equal in dignity and rights, is the same fallacy as assuming that "All people have inalienable human rights," means that only people have inalienable human rights, which is the same as "All scuba divers have inalienable human rights," therefore only scuba divers have inalienable human rights.

Another false analogy

I disagree and the above is why.

It certainly gives no justification for assuming the reverse.

It certainly does! It is only logical to assume that, if a part of a document states that "All scuba divers have the right to life," and another part states "All human beings have the inalienable human right to life," then, since scuba divers are human beings, the fact of their nature of being a human being is what confers the right to life, not the fact of their being a scuba diver. You can interchange scuba diver with person or born human or embryo or fetus or any human being and get the same objective logical deduction.

You make this assertion is spite of all the evidence, the articles of the UN UDHR, and the actions of the UN that contradict your claim. You really do appear to believe that you understand what the UN was saying better than the UN itself.

I make this assertion based on the evidence. The actions of the UN demonstrate an assertion despite the evidence. I understand what words in the English language mean. If the UN doesn't, (or didn't) then they need to change their laws to accurately represent what they mean. Until they do, they are not rational.

Now you're arguing that we must take the concept of equal rights out of context and apply it to fetuses even though equal rights do not apply to fetuses.

Equal rights do not apply to fetuses in one law, yet they do under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Which would you rather change? If you want to be rational, you must change one or the other. I think the law legalizing abortion should be changed, but changing the UDHR would solve this logical dilemma just as well. The consequences of each change must be weighed and I believe the long-term consequences of changing equal human rights to unequal human rights far outweigh the consequences of prosecuting abortionists.

LWF
Do you see the arbitrary nature of these assertions?

Dr. Rick
Yes, don't you?

I'm going to assume you meant this in context with the post I was responding to. Since I see the arbitrary nature of asserting that the level of development of the brain is what allows a human being the right to life, and the contradiction of this assertion with the UDHR, I argue that it is not rational to make a law declaring this to be the case without first changing the UDHR.

Now you've contradicted youself, again this time with another ad hoc argument: you previously claimed that rights arise from "being a human being." Now you are changing it with the limitation that "without life, no other rights apply." Your previous argument would have allowed a right to privacy for cadavers because they are "human beings" by your definition; your new changes allow extensions of rights to skin cells, individual organs, and spermatozoa.

I don't see how this is an after-the-fact explanation, but it seems a priori true that the right to life can't be granted if the subject is not alive. It is also logical to assume that all dead humans had the right to life before they died. It is also logical that, if the dead are incapable of life, they are incapable of all other rights.

The right to privacy is interestingly not an inalienable right. We assume we have it, and to a large extent we do, however not all humans have the inalienable right to privacy at all times. This right can be revoked for the convenience of another in certain situations, namely a doctor or nurse examining a patient's body without consent, or a mother denying her young (or even unborn) child the right to privacy. But I digress...

How exactly does my "new" argument allow extensions of rights to anything other than a human being? None of these examples are human beings. No skin cell, organ, or spermatozoa is a member of the family Homonidae of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

You are arguing that we should substitute the current law for your illogical and contradictory position that grants fetuses, cadavers, and kidneys full human rights, that substitutes the UN UDHR for your beliefs, and that is based upon your false premises re-stated as conclusions.

I hope you see now that this does not in the slightest bit represent my argument.

Another false statement; if what you said was correct, abortion would be illegal. Abortion is not illegal, so your equivocations are not correct.

So much faith in a system which once allowed slavery. Slaves never had inalienable rights until the law said they did. Do you agree? Why was the law changed? Because Africans actually did have inalienable human rights, despite what the law said? Or because they should have had inalienable human rights despite what the law said? Is there any real difference in these two statements? Inalienable human rights means that, even if a particular law denies a human a particular right, he or she is still entitled to it because they are a human being and the law denying the inalienable right should be eliminated.

You just can't stop contradicting yourself; you claim that human rights are "inalienable" and then proceed to tell us when you believe that they are not!

They are inalienable unless they are revoked. If I am contradicting myself and human rights are truly inalienable, then it ought to be illegal to jail a criminal, or kill in self-defense, or pull the plug on a coma patient. Inalienable human rights are revocable in certain circumstances. I hope you are aware of this. The motive for revoking the right to life is protection of the life of oneself or another or conservation of resources in a situation where the human life has no hope of consciousness nor survival apart from artificial support. If a human being does not fall into one of these categories, his or her right to life cannot be forcibly revoked. A fetus falls into none of these categories.

Human rights arise from values and are expressed in our laws. You cannot use logic to extend them for purposes for which they were not intended. Human rights cannot be extended to fetuses by an exercise in logic. They can only be extended by changes in values and/or the law.

On the contrary, human rights cannot be extended to fetuses by changes in values any more than by an exercise in logic. They can ONLY be extended to fetuses by the law. The law does not extend them rights. Therefore fetuses do not have rights. Congratulations! You have refuted the argument which claims that by law fetuses currently have inalienable rights. Because abortion is legal, fetuses do not have inalienable rights. I guess you got me! :notworthy

:banghead: