Oolon Colluphid

Are they? Perhaps you could define ‘human being’ for us? A single cell is not what most people would think of when the term is used, nor a bunch of cells. To be sure, those are usually called ‘embryos’ rather than foetuses, but there is a gradual development of one into the other, all the way to adulthood and senility. Similarly the tailed, gill-barred fishlike thing with eyes on the sides of its head of around six weeks doesn’t quite fit with the term.

So at what point should the term ‘human being’ kick in? At conception, when a genetically new entity is formed? That would make a certain sense. And yet, as I say, a bunch of cells is not usually what we consider to be a human being. One could just as well argue that a human being proper doesn’t come about till around a year after birth!

So, what is a human being? Your comment that “no skin cell, organ, or spermatozoa is a member of the family Homonidae of the species homo sapiens sapiens” doesn’t help. In fact, it would seem to hinder your position, since I’m intrigued as to what an embryo has that a liver does not. Perhaps the term you’re looking for is potential human being? But if so, you have to admit that such things aren’t there yet...

Oh, and btw, the family is the Hominidae, and genus names are always capitalised: Homo sapiens. It’s as well, if you’re going to use scientific terms, to get them right. Otherwise we might think you’re only using them to sound more credible, and anyway some smart-arse is bound to pick you up on them .

TTFN, DT

dk

A universal right to life by logical necessity extends to all live human beings , else any construct of "universal human rights" becomes impossible. Abortion selectively disenfranches human life by deferring the freedom of a fetus to the liberty of the mother. I'm not arguing a moral ought or nought, but a logical necessity.

Jolimont

Lots of 24 weekers not only survive but thrive because doctors know how to prevent "bleeds" better. I personally know several who are not showing any signs of their prematurity as toddlers.

23 weekers have a bad odds still and those who survive live with dissabilities later on. Few 22 weekers ever make it, let alone without dissability, although once in a while...

As you can see viability is pushed back all the time. 5 years ago they started attempting ressuscitation at 24 weeks, and it often failed. Now 24 weekers do quite well as a rule. So where does viability really start? It's hard to say since it changes quickly, but I'm comfortable with 20 weeks for the time being.

PS: I'm not talking out of my ass, I've had preemies and I am in contact with many preemie parents as a volunteer.

Carrie

I say "never" to abortion (in most cases), because I've seen pictures of aborted fetuses, and even when really young, they look like little humans to me. The pictures can be found online, and they are pretty terrible:

http://www.operationrescue.org/abortion/babypics.asp

dk

1. The scientific definition for an.. ...
   
   Quote:

   organism : An individual living system, such as an animal, plant, or microorganism, that is capable of reproduction, growth, and maintenance. ----- A Dictionary of Biology, Oxford University Press, ©

2. The scientific definition for potential is...
   Quote:

   potential: Any scalar function of position whose gradient f is a given vector field: f = -ËÖ or in one dimension (coordinate x) f = -d/dx. ----- ibid

   .

Clearly a human zygote is a one cell totipotent organism that results from the fusion of two gametes during sexual reproduction. So the question turns on whether a human being is an organism, and if so then by association a zygote is a human being i.e. Human(zygote=organism=being).

Potential is a scalar, so I suppose one could chart the slope of a human organism through the entire life cycle to normalize some correlation to potential, like IQ. But biological organisms generally, and especially humans beings being very complex creatures with big brains, misrepresent themselves by using such a crass derivative. . Since a scalar has no direction or mass the idea of a potential human being converges with reality at the point of absurdity. Perhaps “pseudo-scalar human being” would be a better description because a pseudo-scalar doesn’t really exist.

long winded fool

dk responded well to this, and I realize that this thread has grown too long to expect newcomers to read through the whole thing, so I'll restate the definition of a human being. A human being is any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae of the group Homo, specifically Homo sapiens. A fetus is not a potential human being. A sperm cell or an egg cell is a potential human being. A fetus is an example of a member of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A liver is not. If you think that a human being does not form until a year after birth, then you are failing to recognize the word "human being," and possibly confusing it with the word "person." I have shown on this thread that it is not logical to argue that a human being forms at any other time than when an organism can be identified as a Homo sapiens sapiens. A mass of cheek cells can be identified as a mass of cheek cells originating from a human being, but not as an organism of the species Homo sapiens sapiens. A zygote can be identified as an organism of the species of Homo sapiens sapiens.

And I appreciate the advice, however if a smart-arse used my grammatical errors to discredit me and refute my argument, I would remind him that ad hominem arguments can be proven to be not logical, thus deflecting the suspicion back onto the individual who is using a logical fallacy to discredit a logical argument.

Dr Rick

Originally posted by lwf, who continues to ignore the response and just repeats the same false premises and fallacies:Originally posted by Dr Rick and ignored by lwf

Nickle

All humans have a right to life, why? Is it just on your say so, or your version of how the laws read? Because either way it's not an argument.

I don't care if an embryo is a human/Homo sapiens/Hominidae, you still have to show they have a right to life. I see dk tries:
Wow, thanks for trying to keep all the loose ends of grammatical inconsistency tied up for us. Look, this is why Dr. Rick was getting annoyed with your use of "human" in two different ways. Just because people and law makers use the word "human" doesn't mean they intend it to apply to all organisms that are Homo sapiens. In common use, "human" can be substituted with "person," "individual" and the outdated "man." So phrases like "universal human rights" just show us that embryos often aren't considered human even though nobody thinks they aren't Homo sapeins.

If you used the phrase "universal Homo sapiens rights" then you would loose the ambiguous meaning and the phrase would still mean exactly the same as what you meant. right?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by 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?

You insist on trying to use the word "human".

Anything with such a brain I think should be treated as a person, not an animal. It would have all the rights and responsibilities of a person and would be subject to our laws. An animal, though, is not.

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.

We are saying that that which gets the rights are by definition people.

"All are born free and equal in dignity and rights," does not necessarily preclude the unborn from having these rights.

But it doesn't grant them, either.

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.

Chimps and dolphins do not possess minds of our level. Ever see a chimp save for retirement?

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.

The point is that personhood must lie in something we possess but the animals don't--otherwise they would be people. Thus we should look at those features possessed only by humans. The only big one is the brain.

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.

True, they waddle. That doesn't mean they aren't upright.

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.

I'm saying the only difference is the complexity of the mind. Therefore that's where personhood lies.

You can set the level of personhood wherever is convenient for your argument.

Fortunately, we do not have any marginal examples around.

I said a headless cadaver is not a person. It IS a human being.

I didn't say cadaver. I said a person whose head was chopped off right there in front of a medical team.

The quality of being a human being does not lie anywhere in the head. It lies in the species.

Then the doctors should try to save the headless body. Acting quickly they probably could--seal off the blood vessels and put in a ventalator. Feed via tube.
Yet you wouldn't see a doctor make the attempt. They would know it wasn't a person.

long winded fool

Originally posted by Dr. Rick
[LWF] continues to ignore the response and just repeats the same false premises and fallacies:

...

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 wording of the UDHR including all articles implies that all fetuses ought to be protected under equal human rights. The actions of the UN imply that fetuses aren't protected. This is called a contradiction. You are the one ignoring the logical interpretation so that you won't appear to have an irrational belief in the eyes of others.

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.

No fallacy is present in my argument. If the word human being used in the UDHR is inconsistent with the actual definition of human being, then the word needs to be changed. I don't care what the UN means by the word human. If the law states something, it is not rational to assume that it doesn't mean what it says.

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.

True. The articles refer to everyone. What do they mean by everyone? It is clearly stated in the preamble that everyone means all members of the human family are entitled to these inalienable human rights. You can't simply ignore the preamble because it presents a problem. It is ridiculous to ignore a part of the law so that you can manipulate another part.

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."

Neither do they use the words mentally retarded or slaves or persons or scuba divers. The UN's actions are inconsistent with the law. Merely insisting otherwise does not help your argument in the slightest bit.

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."

Of course, my premise is neither demonstrably fase nor unacceptable. It is demonstrably true and any who do not accept it without logical reason are irrational. You broke your argument down very nicely in your last post and I systematically refuted each part. Please address why these are not refutations in turn and refrain from blatantly accusing me of ignoring your argument when you well know that this is not the case. You are skirting into the strawman/ad hominem territory.