Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
So what you're saying is that humans don't have inalienable rights, persons have inalienable rights.

Correct. I believe there are a few humans (ie, those in irreversable comas) that aren't persons and it's quite possible for a person not to be a human. (ET's, or in time AI's)

Here is a question; is it considered murder to sneak into a hospital and pull the plug on a patient who will never wake up again? Keep in mind that I'm not asking if you think it should be murder, I'm asking if it IS murder.

I believe the law is wrong in this case. I do not consider this to be murder.

Can I be charged with murder if I attack a pregnant woman and cause a miscarriage before her unborn child is conscious?

One of the things behind Roe vs Wade is that back then this was *NOT* murder in *ANY* state. I think some states have made it murder in an effort to undermine Roe vs Wade.

So then human rights are subject to individual interpretation?

The problem with using "human" is that there are plenty of things clearly human and yet clearly not worthy of rights. For example, any samples taken by the doctor. That is one of the reasons I use "person"--"human" has two meanings.

Banning abortion is only a restriction on women's rights if the aborted life form is not human or is a human with no human rights.

No--it's a restriction of her rights no matter what. If the fetus is a person then it's a neccessary infringement.

This must be proven. Until it is, it must be assumed to be a human (see the hunter analogy) and women's rights become included in the fetus' rights.

You quoted my three extreme examples but you have not refuted them at all. Therefore you can't argue for the most restrictive interpretation automatically being right.

There's no such thing as "women's rights." There are human rights.

Agreed.

She does not have the right to do what she pleases with someone else's body, even if they are not conscious.

You have assumed your conclusion in your argument. Invalid.

If the fetus has human rights, its right to life logically supercedes the mother's right to happiness.

*IF*. You based your argument from this, however, you did not prove it. You can't argue abortion is wrong because abortion is wrong!

Since human cells are not humans, it is not murder to destroy them.

Note that you are using two meanings of "human" in this sentance!

Since neither a human egg nor a human sperm are a human being, it is not murder to destroy either.

Any why aren't they?

Since preventing life is not destroying life, contraception is not analogous to abortion.

Oh, but the egg is most certainly human and it's most certainly alive.

Besides, I wasn't arguing against contraception per se, but rather on failing to make an active effort to conceive.

long winded fool

The problem with using "human" is that there are plenty of things clearly human and yet clearly not worthy of rights. For example, any samples taken by the doctor. That is one of the reasons I use "person"--"human" has two meanings.

What are the two meanings of human? And by what authority are these "human things" clearly not worthy of rights?

No--it's a restriction of her rights no matter what. If the fetus is a person then it's a necessary infringement.

So it is. I stand corrected.

You have assumed your conclusion in your argument. Invalid.

True. I should have said, if the unborn is a human with rights, then the woman has no right to take its life, even if it is using the woman's body for sustenance. Since there is little doubt that, if left to its own devices, the human fetus will develop personhood and therefore rights, why not assign rights to humanity instead of to personhood? For the convenience of unwilling mothers? Convenience always falls behind necessity, and the mother's womb is a necessity for the child.

Note that you are using two meanings of "human" in this sentence!

I see only one meaning. A human is a homo sapiens sapiens. Human cells are cells from homo sapiens sapiens. I fail to see how this is a dilemma.

And why aren't they?

Because a human is a homo sapiens sapiens. A sperm or egg cell from a human is not. Any biologist can tell the difference between a mass of living human cells and a human being.

Let's assume unborn humans are not guaranteed rights by the constitution. Let's say a couple conceives a child. Say the mother is elated because she's always wanted a baby, but the father does not. If the father purposely kills the fetus against the will of the mother, he will only be guilty of assault, though the mother will grieve as though she's lost her baby. The father will be labeled by his neighbors a murderer, though by law he may only be charged with battery. If a neighbor were to see the woman in danger, he would protect her even more ardently if he knew she were pregnant. I don't think anyone "knows" instinctively that there isn't a child present yet. I think instinctively we know that a child IS present. It is reason that tells some of us that, despite our instincts, that blob of cells is not a human child. It is instinctively far better to bring a child into a world unprepared than to kill a child. This is why mothers are instinctively against abortion. (If they weren't, then abortion would not be a difficult choice.) But if we redefine "child," the problem disappears and our reason can mask our instincts. Mother's can learn that, though they feel responsible for the human growing inside them, they actually are not. They don't have to face the consequences of their actions if they don't want to. Murder is instinctively wrong because it takes the life of a living human, and humans instinctively know that this is a practice that is detrimental to the species. Reason allows us to do it anyway, despite the fact that our instincts tell us it's wrong. Humans, unlike animals, can learn to murder for the sake of convenience instead of survival. Legalizing murder by redefining it may help to control population growth, but this is not a reasonable answer. If humans are not rational enough to control their instincts when times are tough, then enduring the consequences perhaps will bring them the wisdom they lack.

In any case, allowing a certain portion of the population to decide who has rights and who doesn't is a dangerous precedent to set for the future of this society. Redefining (or improperly defining) humanity has led us down dark roads in the past. Every definition of humanity the human race has held in the past has turned out to be not broad enough. The racial barrier is still being torn down. When we found we could relate to other cultures and races, we realized that the definition of humanity was broader than we thought. I have even seen adamant pro-abortionists change their boundaries of when abortion should be allowed when they've seen a photograph of a fetus less than 3 months old with eyes a nose and a mouth. When we know more about the fetus, perhaps we'll change our boundaries of humanity again. Until then, it is logical to err on the side of caution, for though a woman's convenience, livelihood, and perhaps even happiness are at stake, the unborn human's very life may be at stake. I would gladly force a rape victim to bear a child if there is a chance that the child is a human being. Two wrongs never make a right, and in fact, the rape victim would be committing a greater evil than her rapist, were she to kill his child. Though both terrible, murder is a worse crime than rape, and allowing an already traumatized rape victim to become a murderer is insufferable. IF the fetus is not worthy of rights, then it is allowed. But until it is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be not human or a human unworthy of human rights, it should not logically be allowed.

crocodile deathroll

I do not believe that a bunch on human cells is a human being with rights because if I was terminated 5 months into gestation as apposed to never been conceived at all then I could not possibly tell the difference.

IMO consciousness emerged as a collective principle that is genetically prompted so if that bunch of human cells that was eventually to become me was terminated at five months I will just emerge somewhere else with the same universal genetic principles for consciousness. I did not need that one particular bunch of cells to exist This is why it is possible for one to be born at all in the first place in spite of the odds.

However, I do think the slippery slope argument against abortion is a fallacy because there are strong maternal instincts that creates a kind of sticky patch half way down so it is not an accelerating slide to the King Herod mindset. People especially woman who actually feel that fetus kicking inside her are going to have strong emotional qualms about terminating late term. So if we just let the woman call the shots it would be far more preferable letting a bunch of pious old men hijack the issue.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
The problem with using "human" is that there are plenty of things clearly human and yet clearly not worthy of rights. For example, any samples taken by the doctor. That is one of the reasons I use "person"--"human" has two meanings.

What are the two meanings of human? And by what authority are these "human things" clearly not worthy of rights?

As you have been using it:

Human: Of homo sapiens sapiens.

Human: A member of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

As for the clearly human things that don't have rights--try a blood sample. My father in law bleeds every day. Once the strip has been tested the drop of blood goes in the trash. Murder? It's certainly living and it's certainly human.

True. I should have said, if the unborn is a human with rights, then the woman has no right to take its life,

Now you say "if" but the argument that I was replying to assumed the if.

I see only one meaning. A human is a homo sapiens sapiens. Human cells are cells from homo sapiens sapiens. I fail to see how this is a dilemma.

The problem is that by using the same word you confuse the issue and confer rights on the second meaning that only apply to the first meaning.

And why aren't they?

Because a human is a homo sapiens sapiens. A sperm or egg cell from a human is not. Any biologist can tell the difference between a mass of living human cells and a human being.

Of course it's obvious--but by the reasoning you used they are human.

If the father purposely kills the fetus against the will of the mother, he will only be guilty of assault, though the mother will grieve as though she's lost her baby. The father will be labeled by his neighbors a murderer, though by law he may only be charged with battery.

I would be inclined to charge him with aggravated assault. I would also feel that she had grounds for a big civil suit against him. Basically the same situation as if he had killed her dog.

It is instinctively far better to bring a child into a world unprepared than to kill a child.

In many cases I regard this as child abuse.

This is why mothers are instinctively against abortion. (If they weren't, then abortion would not be a difficult choice.)

I don't think that's the source of the difficulty. Rather, it's we have an innate desire for children.
My wife is from China and practiced medicine for many years there. Never did she encounter anyone traumatized by abortion even when it was because of state encouragement rather than personal desire.

In any case, allowing a certain portion of the population to decide who has rights and who doesn't is a dangerous precedent to set for the future of this society.

You are assuming your conclusion in your argument again! As far as I am concerned everyone has the same rights.

Every definition of humanity the human race has held in the past has turned out to be not broad enough.

Nor is yours. What status does ET get when he shows up? Unless we blow ourselves up first he will--if not from the stars then from our computers.

I have even seen adamant pro-abortionists change their boundaries of when abortion should be allowed when they've seen a photograph of a fetus less than 3 months old with eyes a nose and a mouth.

The average person is not prepared to deal with the realities of surgery.

I would gladly force a rape victim to bear a child if there is a chance that the child is a human being. Two wrongs never make a right, and in fact, the rape victim would be committing a greater evil than her rapist, were she to kill his child.

At least you are an honest pro-lifer. You are in the minority.

long winded fool

The problem is that by using the same word you confuse the issue and confer rights on the second meaning that only apply to the first meaning.

Of course it's obvious--but by the reasoning you used they are human.


Because a human being has a certain property doesn't mean that parts of the human share that property. A part of a human is not a human. Blood samples, sperm, ova, and all other human cells are not individual homo sapiens sapiens. By my reasoning these are not worthy of rights. My heart doesn't have the right to life, it is I as a human being that has the right to life. And my right to life in this society is based on my species and nothing else. Since I am a human life form, and since my blood is not a human life form, my blood has no rights. You can do whatever you'd like with it, so long as my right as a human is respected. This is not a logical dilemma, and I did not assume my conclusion in my premise. "An unborn human is a human," is not my conclusion. I consider this an axiom. How can you prove that a human fetus is not homo sapiens sapiens? My conclusion is "All humans beings have equal rights regardless of age, gender, or race in this society, therefore abortion is unlawful." and my premise appealing to the laws of this society shows this.

I agree. A bunch of human cells is not a human being. A homo sapiens sapiens is a human being that is made of a bunch of human cells. (Some with more than others.) Killing human cells is not wrong. Infringing on the rights of a human being, regardless of the number of his cells, is wrong.

If consciousness can travel from body to body, then what is the difference between killing a grown man and a fetus? Both should be equal in the first place. Is the ability to feel pain what grants human beings rights? Letting the woman call the shots is letting one human revoke the rights of another human. (Human being used in the sense of a human being, and not "of humanity.") If a woman can revoke the rights of her child, then I can just as easily revoke her rights. Mothers don't own their children anymore than they own anyone else. They have a responsibility for their children, which excludes killing them. By what authority are women granted the option of revoking another innocent human being's right to life? Is it the fact that an unborn human needs a woman to survive that gives her this power? If so, why aren't doctors allowed to destroy patients who rely on them for life? I don't deny that women have say over how to raise their child and what to do with it. However, no woman has the right to revoke its human rights unless it is attempting to revoke hers. This how rights work. And if the authority comes from majority rule, then there is nothing wrong with slavery as long as the majority decide it is okay. Since slavery is wrong regardless of what the majority says, then it must be because all humans have certain inalienable rights, and not because our neighbors say so. Since a fetus is a human, it has inalienable rights and abortion ought to be banned until the constitution of the United States is amended to allow the revoking of any innocent human's rights for the convenience of another. And then we can kill or enslave those who we feel don't deserve the title of "human."

I need no piety when logic is on my side.

Doubting Didymus

Gah! How did I miss this thread?

Oh, well. Too late now. Carry on.

Dominus Paradoxum

"I need no piety when logic is on my side."

You seem to be simply assuming without arguement that anything that is a human being in potentia is ipso-facto a full fledged human with rights. By that reasoning, a sperm cell or an ovum also has rights, because they are human beings 'in potentia'. It is, after all, natural for them to develope, they certainly weren't "designed" to be thrown away. But to me this whole 'in potentia' buisness is just bad metaphysics. Nothing actually is what it is "potentially". An acorn is not an oak. Neither then is an embryo a 'human' in the fully fledged, 'robust' sense. Humanity does not have to be an all-or-nothing affair. It comes in degrees. There dosen't have to be some 'special' point (i.e. conception) where we can finally say "there, that's definately a human."

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
Because a human being has a certain property doesn't mean that parts of the human share that property. A part of a human is not a human. Blood samples, sperm, ova, and all other human cells are not individual homo sapiens sapiens. By my reasoning these are not worthy of rights.

Ok, then, human cells don't make a human. Why then is the fetus a human?

long winded fool

For the same reason that an infant is a human. It is an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

But a fetus or embryo is not a human being in potentia. It is a human being. Human DNA or egg and sperm cells are human beings in potentia. An acorn is an oak. It is not an oak tree. Any good botanist can tell you the species of the acorn. I have heard the argument that, "throwing acorns into a fire is not the equivalent of deforestation." While this is true, this is a false analogy which I will show with a counter analogy.

According to federal law, the crime of destroying the embryo of a golden eagle is the same crime as destroying an adult golden eagle and incurs the same penalty. The value of the eagle is based on its species and not its potential to feel pain. Golden eagles are a highly valued species, however human beings carry more value than eagles do. Therefore, if the laws follow logically, the crime of destroying a human embryo should be equal to the crime of destroying an adult human and should carry the same penalty, which should be a stiffer penalty than the crime of destroying an eagle demands. Destroying an egg is killing an eagle. Abortion is killing a human. If killing an adult eagle and an eagle egg are the same crime, and if killing an adult human is murder, then killing a human fetus is murder.

Doubting Didymus

Hey!!! I can't believe you did that.

For the record, It was me, in a previous thread that made the analogy of the acorn and the oak tree. Anyone who knows even a little biology knows that a plant seed contains a complete and eligible embryo, totally analogous in every respect to a human one, and is not a sperm or egg equivalent. LWF's golden eagle counter example was swiftly and soundly dealt with in that thread and I am quite stunned to see him using it again. Did you think I would miss it, LWF?

Refutation follows: To understand why eagle eggs are met with the same punishment as eagle poaching, one must understand the reason that the law was enstated in the first place. In this case, the golden eagle is an endangered species that the state is trying to keep around. One of the biggest threats to the survival of this species is egg collecters. It is for THIS reason that egg destruction is met with an equivalent punishment. The state is using these laws to protect the suvival of a species, and NOT because they legally recognise that an embryo is equivalent to an adult. Thus, the laws can not logically apply to any species that is not endangered. The acorn parrallel stands unchallenged.

Long Winded Fool, you should learn from your mistakes in future.