J-D

Your 'proofs' depend on assumptions which are in dispute. I don't want to reopen those disputes; I think we've taken them as far as we can. I just want to put the point on record.

J-D

How do you justify saying that?

John A. Broussard

And yet you won't deal with the fact that god (or nature, if you prefer) is the great abortionist, killing far more unborn than those she/he/it allows to come to term.

long winded fool

Because if it were the case, then African people didn't become a member of the species until the 1800's. Or do we have to take into account tribal law? If so, which law is correct?

"Homo sapiens sapiens" is, generally speaking, an objective classification in modern science and is not subject to individual interpretation. While the point at which primates evolved into humans might be blurry, you must agree that there is no dispute among living humans. The fact that we don't know exactly when our ancestors went from ape to man is irrelevant because no one is arguing that apes are the ones being denied rights in legal abortion. There are no living animals that any scientist believes should be included in the species that are not already.

Let me expand on my statement: The law does not decide who is and isn't a human, it decides which humans have the right to exist.

long winded fool

I agree with this. Nature is the great abortionist. Nature is the great murderer. I do not advocate that this practice become law because this practice is anti-social, and, living in a society, I must assume that society is a good thing.

This assumption is in dispute however. J-D points out that homicide for the purposes of mercy might not necessarily be wrong if suffering is a worse fate than death, and that this is a possible justification for legal homicide. However, I don't see how homicide could not be unacceptably detrimental to society even if suffering were more detrimental. (In fact, I don't see how it is logically possible for suffering to be more detrimental to society than death.) If it can be better to wipe out a society than to let it suffer, then society and survival is no longer the greatest good. Escape from suffering is. I do not accept this premise. I think that it is logically flawed. I think that, regardless of suffering, the goal of every society that has ever existed has been, and continues to be, survival. What other reason is there for two animals to cooperate? Indeed, what is the purpose of the desire to escape from suffering?

Sarpedon

Friendly Mod Warning:

Hey everyone, interesting thread you've got going, I've just noticed a little bit of unfriendliness in the last few pages, so just to remind you to keep things polite and civil, and please refrain from backhanded comments and snide remarks. Thanks! and back to lurking for me!

John A. Broussard

Logically, then, you are advocating doing everything possible to preserve the continued existence of a zygote--and you have some legal support for your view.

Here in Hawaii a woman was recently convicted of damaging the fetus she was carrying by being addicted to metamphetamines.

That would seem to mean that you--and the law--are on the way of keeping pregnant women from using any substance known to damage the fetus--alcohol, many drugs, caffeine--even foods that contribute to obesity.

In fact, the ultimate result of applying this view to society, would meant that any woman of child-bearing age would have to be carefully and constantly monitored--perhaps physically restricted--in order to prevent a possible miscarriage.

I wonder how women would react to your proposal.

Dr Rick

-Let’s dispense with the silliness, first:
No.

Because the assertion is lame.

Substitute “human fetus�? with “human woman�? and you end up with a redundancy, not a meaningful term. There is no such thing as a “non-human woman�?; all women are human, so there is no use for the term "human woman".

There can be “human doctors�?; though the term is awkward, it could refer to the type of patients treated or to the characteristics of the doctor, but no one using the English language properly would mean it to be a reference to the species of the doctor. There are “inhuman doctors,�? and even though the term "human woman" makes no sense, the term “inhuman women�? does. “Josef Mengele was an inhuman doctor�? and "Queen Mary was an inhuman woman" does not mean that either of them weren't homo sapiens, it means that they were very cruel. But it would be idiotic to claim that a fetus is either “inhuman�? or "human" in this context. There are “human fetuses,�? but there are no “inhuman fetuses�?; there are “non-human fetuses�? such as monkey or baboon fetuses, but there are no "non-human men"

These differences in grammar and language occur because the term human has more than one meaning. When it is applied to fetuses, it a reference to taxonomy as any other meaning wouldn't make sense. Human applied to born humans and to many characteristics of humans and their rights, on the other hand, often refers to something other than taxonomy.

In other words, the term human has more than one meaning; your false claim that the meaning of the word as it applies to fetuses must be the only one to be used in human rights is an equivocation fallacy.

Now let’s move on to the falsehoods:

You somehow missed the last twenty-plus web pages?

Right.

You didn't see this:
and you didn't see this:
And you've certainly never seen this:

And there are literally dozens more. To come this far and then claim that you haven't been shown why you are wrong when you have been shown just that thoroughly and repeatedly is, at best, a mischaracterization.

long winded fool

But "doing everything possible to preserve life" is not the same thing as refraining from murder. I only ask that the latter be enforced by law. It is not murder for me to sit here at my computer and throw away half of a perfectly good sandwich while children are starving to death in third world countries. It is murder for me to intentionally destroy a child.

That said, yes there are some things women who already are pregnant should not be allowed to do as a safety issue to her fetus. How do women react to this proposal? Do they think that this is a violation of her rights? WHat about the fetus' rights? Simple, just take the fetus' rights away, right? Then there's no contradiction.

For instance, I think that it should be illegal for a construction company to allow a pregnant woman to operate a jackhammer. Is this unreasonable? If a female soldier cannot adequately throw a grenade, should she be allowed to use them in combat? Is this a violation of her human rights? Is this inequality?

The notion of safety to others (fetuses included) can take away a great many human rights. But the one right it cannot take away is the right to exist. As soon as another becomes a direct threat to my life, I am justified in lethal self-defense, and at no other time is lethal force justified.

long winded fool

But I never made this argument, so there is no fallacy. I never claimed that the term 'human' may only be used in the sense of taxonomy, I argue that it should only be used in the sense of taxonomy because any other usage renders rights alienable and inequal. If we look at law in its spirit, rather than just at its letter, it becomes irrational. Legal abortion is not inherently irrational because it uses grammatically incorrect definitions of human, it is irrational compared to the body of law and the purpose of society because it is in violation of the rights it purports to protect. You attribute this argument to me every time, and every time I tell you that it is not the case.


Dr. Rick, tell me what you think of this:

I create a society and establish some laws. One of the laws I establish is: "All dogs have the legal right to exist." I.E. it is illegal to euthanize a dog. A group of people come along and complain about stray dogs. I tell them that the dog catcher will come and relocate them, and neuter them on top of that so that they cannot reproduce. They say that this is not good enough. They say that it ought to be legal to kill stray dogs in order to protect their children who play outside. I think for a moment and decide "that sounds reasonable."

Now here is my question to you: Do I have to change the above law stated in quotes? Or can that law still be in effect with another law making it legal to kill some dogs?

If I were to defend the latter point of view, I would make the claim: "The meaning of the word 'dogs' in the first law has nothing to do with the meaning of the word 'stray dogs' in the second. While stray dogs are dogs, the original law was implicitly written to only include pets."

What do you think of that defense of legal canicide in a society where all dogs have the right to life? Am I grasping at straws?