John A. Broussard

Now you have had time to act on the basis of your detached, philosophical introspection.

No instinct now. Just cold, rational thought.

Which should be saved? The child or the bucket of embryos.

Take your time. I know this won't be an easy choice for your detached philsophical introspection to make.

ecco

Nothing like putting him on the spot!

While you're at it, LWF, try this one: You are standing at the bottom of a hill in San Francisco. A runaway trolley is coming down the hill. You have control of a switch that will direct the trolley to one of two tracks. On one track is one child, on the other track are five children. Which way will you direct the trolley? BTW, if you make no decision, the trolley derails killing all six children.

Yahzi

I predict LWF will take the easy choice of simply ignoring you from now on. I tried to get him to explain why he would throw an uninvited bum out of his house, so now he just ignores me.

J-D

Nothing to apologise for, in my opinion.If you want to have rights (whether alterable or not) embodied in law (whether alterable or not), then the question of who is to make the law inescapably arises. If you want to have unalterable laws embodying unalterable, equal, and inalienable human rights, then somebody has to make those laws. So, who makes laws? Well, it can be parliaments, congresses, assemblies, councils, kings, dictators, or what have you, but if we're going to generalise, we can only say that laws are made by people who have the power to make laws. That's tautologous. So you do want the people with power to make laws defining people's rights. I don't see how you can justify the position that this should be something that is only done once and then can never be done again.No, you come on. This is about what the law is, and I've already explained to you that the UDHR is not law. Still less is 'what is thought to be the case in America' law. However, that turns out to be a little beside the point, for a number of reasons (as we shall see in a moment) ...Yes, you're right. Like the Constitution of Kentucky, as you quoted. There are such laws. I still think it's a bad idea to write laws like that, but I have to admit, I said they don't exist (because that's what I thought) and I was wrong. You were right and I was wrong. There are laws (for example, the Constitution of Kentucky) that explicitly assert the existence of equal and inalienable rights. But ...You still haven't succeeded in establishing this part. Mind you, even if you did succeed in establishing the contradiction, my position would be that the problem comes from having a law that says there are equal and inalienable rights, and that that's the part of the law that should be changed to remove the contradiction.But here you overstate your case. The expression 'any state' includes my State. I did look up its Constitution, as you suggested, and it doesn't say anything at all I could find about rights, let alone equal and inalienable ones.The legal meaning of a legal document cannot be determined by your assumptions. It depends on legally valid interpretation. This, and not your personal assumptions, will tell us whether the word 'men' in the Constitution of the State of Kentucky includes, legally, women. And it will also tell us, as I said before, that the legal meaning of 'human rights' does not include fetuses. So, within the law, on the law's own terms, there's no contradiction. There's only a contradiction with your interpretation. So much the worse for your interpretation.No, this is not a correct way of stating it. Such documents are not evidence of the general feeling among modern-day Illinoisans, Kansans, or Kentuckians. They are not even evidence of the general feeling among Illinoisans, Kansans, and Kentuckians at the time they were adopted. They are evidence of what the law is in Illinois, Kansas, and Kentucky, which is not the same thing.I wasn't going to. I deduce by this that when you made your remark above about 'any state', you actually meant 'any American State'. There are other states in the world, so it would have been clearer if you had said that that was what you meant. If you tell me that that was what you meant, then I accept that. In the same way you must accept that ...... if you want to know what the law means when it says 'human', you have to ask the law. Does the law say that the word 'human', in references to the rights of humans, includes unborn humans? No, it does not. The law says the opposite. The contradiction is only present in what you take the law to mean, not in what the law itself actually does mean.However, if this did happen, it would be fine by me.I've checked. Quite true, you didn't say that 'complete cooperation' is essential to the existence of human society. So what I should have said then was: 'Why do you think that "complete cooperation" is important'? But I no longer need to ask that question, as you've given your answer here. However, there are two things you haven't done. You haven't explained what you mean by 'complete cooperation'. You have given no basis for the claim you now make.No, unconscious interaction is not social interaction. The only interaction between the fetus and the pregnant woman is physiological interaction.But of course it does! It's precisely their current state that makes them unable to interact socially!No! If you are defining 'human' to include 'fetus', then it is not true that all healthy humans are capable of social interaction, because healthy fetuses are not capable of social interaction.The relevant difference, in this context, between a sleeping adult and a fetus is that, in addition to the aspects they have in common, the sleeping adult also has a past record of social interaction that has given it its place in society. The fetus has no such past record.No. This characterisation of my analysis is false. I did not ignore the consideration that you falsely accuse me of ignoring. I specifically made reference to that point in my analysis. Nor did I say anything in my analysis about some humans being worth less than others.This all depends on what you think you're doing here. Either you assume that there's some possibility of affecting my views by what you post here, or you assume that there's no possibility. If there's no possibility, then what is your purpose? I suppose you might be using this opportunity purely to expound your own position, without any expectation of influencing me. If so, surely it impairs your exposition to omit any significant element? If, on the other hand, you're assuming that it may at least be possible to influence my views, then I can assure you that stonewalling reduces your chances of doing so, as does putting words in my mouth and refusing to give me the opportunity to respond to something because you insist that you know in advance how I'm going to respond. Even if doing so only confirms your expectations, how can that hurt you?Do you have any evidence that that there is a general consensus of human societies that 'human rights' extend to fetuses? I think all the evidence points in the opposite direction.I haven't seen the evidence that I'm in the minority on this specific point. But I know I'm in the minority on many matters. So what?Of course it's not my opinion that determines which rights are in fact guaranteed by law. As for my opinion about which rights ought to be guaranteed by law, that's just what it is, my opinion about what ought to be done. You, on the other hand, express your opinion about what ought to be done. Your opinion has the status of 'your opinion' and my opinion has the status of 'my opinion'. We can discuss the bases for our opinions, but status to give an opinion doesn't come into it.

Why should I believe what you say about 'the intention of society'? How do you know what society's intentions are? Further, do you think that the fact that something is the intention of society justifies it? And what if society's intentions are contradictory?

I don't know whether it's true that 'most societies' believe that they have 'fair and equal human rights', but if they do they're wrong.

You say that the question is in the definition of 'human'. Do most societies define 'human', for the specific purpose of legally defined 'human rights', to include fetuses? How do you know? And how do you think what most societies do is relevant to the question of what is the right thing to do?I am at a loss to understand you here. What meaning do you assign to the phrase 'empirical data'? What do you think it means?And I'm still at a loss to understand you here. Can you give a specific example of how empirical data can be used to prove anything? I just don't get your point.You can't defend your position by saying that it was just an explanation of 'the view that currently exists'. As I told before, more than one view currently exists. The question is, which one do you support and why? What rights do you think animals should have, and why?I do.You say they mgiht be. If that is so, then (from your point of view) wouldn't it be important to find out? And then, how would you go about finding out?I was replying to remarks of yours in which you used the word 'meaningless'. I assumed I knew what you meant by this, and that therefore I could use the word 'meaningful' to signify the opposite. If you think I didn't understand what you meant by 'meaningless', please explain further.I wonder whether you are confusing two separate questions. If we are using the word 'rights' to refer to how any actual or possible human society is or could conceivable be organised as a matter of fact, then there is no possible basis for 'rights' except power. How stable or unstable it is depends on the circumstances of the particular case. No law, for example, ever does or ever can have any basis apart from power, and I don't see how you could imagine that it could. Give me an example, real or hypothetical, of how you think a law could be established without reliance on power. On the other hand, if we use the word 'rights' to refer to a moral standard that we think should apply (whether in fact it does or not), then it's easy enough to suppose that the people in the particular hypothetical you've just constructed have exactly the same rights as anybody else, although we have to admit that those rights are unfortunately being violated. But what except power do you think can stop people's rights from being violated?What you are describing might be considered a situation where wisdom and rationality exercise power, or more concretely, where the people who have power use it wisely and rationally. But you can't eliminate power as a feature of the situation.

You also seem to be asserting that it is always wise and rational to strengthen society. Why?Once again, I'm having difficulty following you. You're the one who insists on the inalienability of rights, so can you please tell me, what do you mean by 'inalienable'?I don't consider to be rational any form of argumentation that insists on treating evidence as irrelevant.What's irritating is your repeated insistence on the false assertion that what I'm saying parallels your bogus paraphrase. Take my actual words (not what you think I meant, but my actual words), put them alongside your actual words, and then show me the parallels.Is it the conventional wisdom that when the UDHR talks about human rights, that expression is intended to extend to cover fetuses? I say no.What I said was that it is irrational to try to make a law unalterable, because rationality includes the concept of being willing to change one's position in the light of new evidence.Scientific laws are descriptive. Human laws are prescriptive. There is no valid parallel.In that case, the criteria I gave for rejecting criminal punishment of people who have abortions are fair, objective criteria and do not violate the principle of equality of rights.

long winded fool

And what, exactly, makes collecting more embryos than are used necessary? It certainly makes it more efficient from the woman's point of view, since women will get their fetus faster, but, when dealing with human lives, since when does greater efficiency outweigh unnecessary deaths?

Why not refrain from fertilizing an egg until you have a host who wants it? This simple notion seems lost to so many pro-choicers.

This is a false statement. My basic premise is an unbiased viewpoint stemming from the english dictionary. A fertilized egg is the equivalent of a human being because any living organism that is a member of the species homo sapiens is a human being, regardless of physical characteristics or level of development. A human being is nothing more than the common designation of the organism homo sapiens. "Personhood" is where the possibility of discrimination exists. "Personhood" could mean just about anything we arbitrarily decide it means. It could exclude late-term fetuses, mid-term fetuses, all fetuses, and has in the past even been used to exclude female humans and dark-skinned humans. The question is not "where do we draw the line?" It is "why are we drawing a line?" It is not "us vs. them," it is all "us." Humans are one species and it makes no sense to predate on ourselves. Introducing "personhood" is solely designed to allow discrimination between one human and another.

Why would I need to ensure that all naturally fertilized eggs reach term? Laws prohibiting the destruction of human beings are not laws that force me to protect human beings at the expense of my civil rights. I am not legally obligated to feed the poor. That would be slavery. I am legally obligated to refrain from destroying a poor human. That is not slavery, that is respecting the fundamental notion that human beings are the foundation of human society, and that, therefore, they must not be arbitrarily destroyed. No woman should be forced to bear a fetus. That would be slavery. All women should be banned from destroying their fetus, unless doing so is the only way to save her life. That is not slavery, that is equal rights. Do you understand the subtle difference in this? Legally, this covers all the bases. All humans ought to have the right to exist, until such time as their existence directly threatens the existence of another. This does not mean that you or I or anyone is obligated to protect the lives of every single human being on the planet. It means that you and I and everyone are (or ought to be) legally obligated to refrain from destroying any human being on the planet, except in self defense. Does this not make sense to you?

long winded fool

Rationally, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Assuming that the "bucket of embryos" represents individual organisms of the species homo sapiens sapiens that all have as good a chance of surviving as the three-year-old human, then obviously the safety of the bucket of embryos ought to take precedence over the safety of the three-year-old.

In reality, a "bucket of embryos" in a burning building most likely represents immensely fragile humans that are, more or less, already dead. In that case, saving the bucket would likely result in no lives saved at all, and in such a case, the three-year-old would be logical choice since it is much more resilient and likely to survive the rescue process.

long winded fool

Again, there are two motives to consider. Sheer reason, and instinct. Rationally, I would deliberately kill the one child in order to refrain from killing five. Net loss is one child of six as opposed to five of six. Instinctively, I would probably cover my eyes and pray to every god I've ever heard of. Once again we find that the natural, instinctive reaction is inferior to cold, emotionless calculation.

On an even more personal level, the instinctive reaction changes, but the rational one does not. What if that one child is my son? Instinctively, I would throw the switch without hesitation and kill five children to save my own. This is the law of natural selection at work. My instincts want my genes to live on, even at the expense of someone elses. However, from a logical standpoint, the rational action is still the same. Better to kill one child and save five than to kill five and save one.

John A. Broussard

Thank you for an honest answer. I've asked this several times in this forum and the wishy-washy answers have always been (up to now) to save the child from being burned alive.

long winded fool

"Can never be done again" is required for the law to be unalterable, is it not? The lawmakers of a society (the people) make unalterable laws by declaring to themselves that, for the stability of society, said law will never be changed. Very few laws ought to be unalterable. The right to exist, however, ought to be an unalterable law, because existence is a requisite for the functioning of society, which is the reason for laws. The people of a given society ought to, if they are rational, make the law of equal respect for the existence of humans once and then decide that it can never be changed. This does not mean that it will never be changed, it means that, so long as rational lawmakers are in power, it will never be changed.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act, for one example, establishes that part by implied exclusion of fetuses. And I challenge your subsequent position with the notion that a society of humans which predates on itself is less healthy than a society of humans which protects itself. And if the goal of laws is to strengthen society, then the only rational course of action is to eliminate contradiction, and the only rational law to eliminate in this particular case of legal contradiction is the law that contributes less to the health of society, right?

That may be what is the case, but my question to you is "what should be the case?" You are a part of the lawmaking body in your state. You have the power to make what ought to be the case reality. Rather than focusing on what the rules are, why not take an unbiased look at the function of society in general, and start inferring rules that ought to exist if said society is to be as healthy and productive as it can be.

If the law is written in a language that can only be deciphered by "legally valid interpretation," then how are you and I supposed to be expected to follow it? The law itself is legally valid interpretation. When it is written in the english language, a dictionary should be all the interpretation I need. If it is not, then what is the purpose of writing the law down? Why not just trust the king, or the queen, or the president, or the emperor, to tell us when we have violated the law?

If the law is not representative of the opinions of the people, why is it law? None of these governments are dictatorships. The government is by the people, for the people. The laws reflect the average of opinions of the people in a free, democratically elected republic. When they don't, they cease to be laws.

Until me and my friends declared you and your friends non-persons, right?

The simplest answer is to refer to my above statement. The absence of cooperation is competition, and war is just another word for intense competition.

Then all asleep humans are also incapable of social interaction.

What does past record of social interaction have to do with current ability to socially interact? What about the brain dead woman? She certainly had a past record of social interaction. Does that give her any less of a place in society than I have when I am asleep?

You state, by rational induction, that "the suffering of loved ones and friends and society at large" is of greater concern than the lives of fetal humans. I.E. humans that you care about should be protected from suffering by destroying humans you do not care about. You do not think that this is statement is out of balance, because you do not believe in inalienable human rights. Because of this position, I am unable to create a 'balance sheet' that can compare to yours without also assuming that the lives of certain humans are worth less than the suffering of other humans. The fact of the matter is: More human lives would be saved by banning abortion than were saved by legalizing it. I agree that more people whom you and I care about are made to suffer by banning abortion. To you this is relevant because you feel that the people you care about should be the only concern. To me it is irrelevant because, regardless of how I feel, I know the necessity of the inalienable right to exist in human society. And so I firmly restate that your balance sheet is biased and requires inequality between humans, which is the very position that I am attacking in my argument.

Because you can't see or empathize with fetuses, and because of the fact that their capability of suffering is minimal compared to the capability of suffering in an adult, you assume that they ought to be expendable in order to protect adult humans from suffering. This is abundantly clear when one views your above balance sheet. This is not my opinion, this is what you said, in so many words. This is a very natural and instinctive position, but it is not a rational position. While I'm the first to admit that the particulars are different, this position itself is no different than for any discrimination between humans. Yes, I know that the balance sheets of suffering change, but what does not change is the fact of discrimination and inequality. Outside of personal opinions and selective empathy, this fact alone makes your position, and the position of any discriminatory belief, faulty. It is irrational to pass laws which contribute to an unhealthy society, and any laws which frustrate cooperation and encourage competition contribute to an unhealthy society.

The problem is that because of the path you've chosen in this argument, you have made clear that my attack, which you call "stonewalling," is directed against the foundation upon which you base your argument, whether you admit it or not. Your argument only follows rationally from this foundation and no other. The only other possibility is that your argument has no foundation, but I don't assume this. I do not accuse you of drawing these conclusions. They are not your conclusions, they are your premises. In order to attack your conclusions, I attempt to refute your premises. You cannot expect me to leave your premises alone and deal only with the conclusion. When you deny that they are your premises, you now have the burden of identifying your premises, and, unless I am wrong and there is another basis upon which this argument could logically rest, any premises other than the ones I have attacked that you identify will render your argument fallacious.

I agree. And it is an unwise consensus that contributes to societies that are less healthy than they could be.

So, if you admit you are in the minority, then why do you ask me to provide evidence of such? You challenge my statement that "equal inalienable human rights" are the assumption of the majority. I tell you that this challenge makes you a minority. Few others would challenge this claim. The majority would accept as an axiom that human rights ought to be equal and inalienable accross the board for all humans. I then use this claim in conjunction with the claim that legal abortion is also the assumption of the majority to point out a contradiction that exists in the beliefs of the majority. From here I explore the reason why humans believe that they all should have a right to exist, and also why healthy societies are founded upon this concept.

If it is not your opinion that determines which rights are guaranteed by law, whose opinion is it? And why does their opinion then become fact while yours remains just an opinion?

Laws are opinions. They are someone's opinions that we agree to adhere to, despite our own uncertainty. There is a reason why we agree to adhere to certain opinions. Those opinions which seem to contribute most to a healthy society tend to become law, because rational humans who live in a society are of the opinion that such a society ought to be healthy, even if they are not wise enough to hold opinions that actually do contribute to the health of society. Society is nothing more or less than a group of cooperating humans. All humans instinctively seek survival. When the society benefits from someone's opinion, that opinion is then incorporated into a legal structure. When society is harmed by someone's opinion, that opinion is not incorporated into the legal structure.

You should believe what I say because it makes sense. If it does not make sense, you should not believe what I say. I believe that what I say makes sense, and can explain it. You are free to disagree, but if you cannot explain why, then I must assume that your motive for disagreement is something other than an honest search for truth.

No. Most societies do not define human to legally include fetuses. They just define human to scientifically include fetuses. At one time, some societies did not define human to legally include Africans either, but they scientifically defined them as such too. Doesn't it strike you as at least a little bit strange that the english definition of a word does not necessarily apply in law? Going back to my earlier statement, if we don't want to be limited by having to communicate laws in the language of the people who are expected to follow them, why not have no written laws and just let G.W. tell me when I screw up?

My point is that your request is absurd. Empirical data cannot exist for conjecture. How would you suggest I collect empirical data on what would happen in modern society if abortion were banned? Don't I have to ban it first?

My position needs no defense because it was never stated. I am not averse to stating it, but if you want it stated on this thread and in this conversation you first have to convince me that it has anything to do with the current argument about legal abortion. Otherwise we ought to open a different thread and discuss animal rights there.

Why do you?

Choice.

Power is a physical feature that cannot be eliminated, but it need not be a feature in decision making. An elephant can choose not to trample a mouse.

Allow me to expound my assertion slightly: It is always rational for a human who chooses to be a member of a society of humans to strengthen that society.

The reason is because strengthening said society ensures the continued fulfillment of said human's desire to be a part of it. To do otherwise frustrates this desire, and to frustrate ones own desires is to act irrationally.

Is it true that if 51% of people in america voted to reinstate legal slavery, slavery would become legal? We voluntarily recognize laws that prevent this, no matter what the opinion of the majority, but yes, we could eliminate them if we desired and legalize slavery because might makes right. The point is whether or not it is wise to ignore the notion of legally inalienable human rights. Because no rights are physically inalienable, and because they are values and not logical constructs does not mean that it is wise to do away with them. They are values adhered to because they benefit society. To refuse to adhere to them is to be detrimental to society.

"Inalienable" does not mean unable to be violated with power, it means unwilling to violate with choice.

I don't insist on treating evidence as irrelevant, I insist on treating biased conclusions based on selective evidence as irrelevant. Don't you agree that it is irrelevant that society suffers greatly under illegal abortion if it suffers more greatly under legal abortion? If existence is a requisite for suffering, then obviously suffering must be endured if it is the only way to protect existence. Instert the word "rights" and you have my argument. I agree that society suffers under illegal abortion. I assert that suffering ought to be endured if it is the only way to protect the human right to exist.

I did so already. You claimed that there were no parallels. I tried to explain to you that you were too entrenched in your assumption that the consequences to fetal humans (i.e. death) are less extreme than the consequences to adult humans, (i.e. suffering, inconvenience, etc.) How can death weigh less than suffering? You seem to think it does, so we have to agree to disagree. I have not convinced you. You believe that the problem lies with my argument, I believe that the problem lies with your evaluation of the consequences.

Is it conventional wisdom that when the UDHR says:

"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,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law...

...Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty."

that it is referring to all humans and not just some humans? Maybe not, but for the document to make any rational sense, it must be the case. Conventional wisdom aside, and non-legally binding United Nations declarations aside, rational deduction is enough to illustrate that all humans ought to have an inalienable right to exist in a given society.

And what new evidence is there that supports legal abortion over the human right to exist? Please see my first response in this post.

Then please stop asking for "empirical evidence" for prescriptive things.

That is blatantly false. If what I said is the case, then the only time rejecting criminal punishment of people who have abortions is fair is when said people do so in defense of their own life.

ecco

So you admit that five embryos at not as valuable as even one child. You rationalize this by imagining that the embryos are “immensely fragile humans that are, more or less, already dead�?. Why are the embryos in the burning building more or less already dead? How do they differ from any other frozen embryos? You have stated repeatedly that a frozen embryo has the same rights as any other human being. Now you justify their demise, at your hands, because they are “immensely fragile humans�?. Would you therefore be in favor of euthanasia for a 95-year-old “immensely fragile human�??

I doubt that is a “simple notion seems lost to so many pro-choicers�?. I’ll bet it has more to do with the state of the art at this time.

Did you really miss the part about “from the time of implantation�?? This “English dictionary�? doesn’t say that an un-implanted frozen embryo is a human being at all so therefore you must be using something other than the dictionary.

I never said you did. I merely suggested that if you could, you would win a Noble Prize.

Yet you would sacrificed multiple “immensely fragile humans that are, more or less, already dead“ to save one child. You are very inconsistent in your beliefs and comments.