pleasant_darktwist

DARKTWIST: Sadly though, yguy, when the law was involved (which it never should have) a line had to be drawn. I personally believe it's murder, have your abortion but don't lie to yourself. It's murder, and that person has to live with it. I've met few people who were happy that they got an abortion.

Women have made it a platform for independece, something they could control. Certain other parties, usually conservative, have used it as a platform for endorsing or condemning certain beliefs. I agree with you: five minutes before, five minutes after, no difference, it's a person. But now it is a political and legal issue, so lines are drawn.

Peace.

long winded fool

It seems that a fetus scientifically becomes a human at the same time any life-form attains the scientific identification of being an example of a particular species. "Humanhood" begins when the species of homo sapiens sapiens is identified in a life form. As Loren Petchel pointed out, a mass of cheek cells can be indentified to be of human origin but not be individual representatives of the human species. A zygote is both of human origin and an individual (albeit utterly dependent) representative of the human species. Since all members of the human species have the inalienable legal right to life, (even those utterly dependent on others) the zygote ought to logically have the inalienable legal right to life.

As yguy points out, the fetus is alive because it is not dead. If 'humanity' is the quality of being a human being, then humanity is not a debatable issue either since a human being is clearly a scientifically defined species or group of species. Personhood is debatable, but not relevant to the legal right to life. Neither are any of the qualities that some human beings possess, (which is what the word 'humanity' connotes in my mind.) The fetus is a human being because it is an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens. The fetus ought logically to have the inalienable legal right to life because the UN declares that all human beings fundamentally have the inalienable right to life by law. It is extremely unwise and irresponsible for the UN to contradict this declaration with a conflicting law without logically addressing and resolving the conflict. They either need to repeal Roe vs. Wade or abandon the declaration of universal and equal human rights. If the law of the land specifically stated that not all human beings have the inalienable right to life and that the right to life only applies to the vocal majority and whoever they choose to include, then the conflict of legal abortion would be solved. (As would the conflict legal slavery presents to the UDHR.)

As you can see, I'm not necessarily arguing that legal abortion is wrong and must be repealed, I'm arguing simply that the laws are in conflict, and that for the good of society this must be resolved. It is my opinion that legal abortion is the much safer law to repeal in a reasoning society, but it is fact that legal abortion and equal human rights are contradictory.

pleasant_darktwist

[QUOTE]Originally posted by long winded fool

It seems that a fetus scientifically becomes a human at the same time any life-form attains the scientific identification of being an example of a particular species. "Humanhood" begins when the species of homo sapiens sapiens is identified in a life form. As Loren Petchel pointed out, a mass of cheek cells can be indentified to be of human origin but not be individual representatives of the human species. A zygote is both of human origin and an individual (albeit utterly dependent) representative of the human species. Since all members of the human species have the inalienable legal right to life, (even those utterly dependent on others) the zygote ought to logically have the inalienable legal right to life.

DARKTWIST
I hate to be flip, but using taxonomy as a defense is still rather arbitrary. Taxonomy involves the grouping of things based on similar characteristics, but the grouping, at this stage, is still rather arbitrary, and based generally only on physical features. In plants it is the method by which they reproduce, flowers, no flowers, etc. You see it is man imposing his order on nature. Just because it is imposed does not mean that such a relationship does exist. Thank you, Biology 2. ;-)

Second there is an old philosophy analogy. You are asleep, while in this state, a violinist is connected you your back in such a way that if he is seperated from you he would die. Do you have the right to terminate that relationship? On what grounds? If you say having sex implies consent (albiet by omission), should you still have to keep the violinist alive?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LWF
As yguy points out, the fetus is alive because it is not dead. If 'humanity' is the quality of being a human being, then humanity is not a debatable issue either since a human being is clearly a scientifically defined species or group of species. Personhood is debatable, but not relevant to the legal right to life. Neither are any of the qualities that some human beings possess, (which is what the word 'humanity' connotes in my mind.) The fetus is a human being because it is an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens. The fetus ought logically to have the inalienable legal right to life because the UN declares that all human beings fundamentally have the inalienable right to life by law.

DARKTWIST
Basic logic: to breakdown your assumption

all fetuses are not dead.
All humans are living
Therefore, All fetuses are human.

Don't try that in logic class.

Just because something is not something, does not mean it is a specific something else, that's a fallacy from basic boolean logic. Violates Necessary/Sufficient.

It is necessary that fetuses are not dead, but not sufficient to conclude that they are living, thus human.

It might be true if alive and dead were a dichotomy. They are not. Even science has classifacitons, like non-living. What about humans who are brain dead, they are not alive, but they are not dead. Being not dead does not mean one is alive. If all A are B, then all B are not C.

Thus, if all humans are alive, then all humans are not non-alive.

Peace.

The Other Michael

Hi pleasant_darktwist,

I should probably lecture you strongly about the use of sex and violins in your post, but somehow I just can't bring myself to do it.


Just remember that in some fora puns are considered a moderator perogative, not to be enroached upon by other users.


You have been warned.


cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator (Maximus)

(edited to add smilies that I had thought were redundant because I'm so accustomed to people guffawing at my attempts at humor )

pleasant_darktwist

Terribly sorry, had no intentions of being crude, I probably just got carried away. If you could let me know specifically what sort of things you found objectionable, I will take note of such in all future posts.

I am new here, just started couple of days ago, and while that is no excuse, I admit that I sometimes have a very vivid, 'visual' style of language. If this is about the pokes about bad logic, I'm sorry, no offense meant.

Again though, I digress and apologize. I appreciate the availablity and openness of this forum, and have no intentions of endangering my membership to its halls.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

With Apologies,

DarkTwist

The Other Michael

Hey DarkTwist,

My post was supposed to be humorous (for I found your's to be so).

I guess I should have sprinkled more smilies through it (I'll go and edit it now to make it clear).

You'll either get used to what passes for humor in these parts, or run away screaming.

cheers,
Michael

long winded fool

[QUOTE]Originally posted by pleasant_darktwist

Quote:

Originally posted by long winded fool It seems that a fetus scientifically becomes a human at the same time any life-form attains the scientific identification of being an example of a particular species. "Humanhood" begins when the species of homo sapiens sapiens is identified in a life form. As Loren Petchel pointed out, a mass of cheek cells can be indentified to be of human origin but not be individual representatives of the human species. A zygote is both of human origin and an individual (albeit utterly dependent) representative of the human species. Since all members of the human species have the inalienable legal right to life, (even those utterly dependent on others) the zygote ought to logically have the inalienable legal right to life. DARKTWIST I hate to be flip, but using taxonomy as a defense is still rather arbitrary. Taxonomy involves the grouping of things based on similar characteristics, but the grouping, at this stage, is still rather arbitrary, and based generally only on physical features. In plants it is the method by which they reproduce, flowers, no flowers, etc. You see it is man imposing his order on nature. Just because it is imposed does not mean that such a relationship does exist. Thank you, Biology 2. ;-) Second there is an old philosophy analogy. You are asleep, while in this state, a violinist is connected you your back in such a way that if he is seperated from you he would die. Do you have the right to terminate that relationship? On what grounds? If you say having sex implies consent (albiet by omission), should you still have to keep the violinist alive? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LWF As yguy points out, the fetus is alive because it is not dead. If 'humanity' is the quality of being a human being, then humanity is not a debatable issue either since a human being is clearly a scientifically defined species or group of species. Personhood is debatable, but not relevant to the legal right to life. Neither are any of the qualities that some human beings possess, (which is what the word 'humanity' connotes in my mind.) The fetus is a human being because it is an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens. The fetus ought logically to have the inalienable legal right to life because the UN declares that all human beings fundamentally have the inalienable right to life by law. DARKTWIST Basic logic: to breakdown your assumption all fetuses are not dead. All humans are living Therefore, All fetuses are human. Don't try that in logic class. Just because something is not something, does not mean it is a specific something else, that's a fallacy from basic boolean logic. Violates Necessary/Sufficient. It is necessary that fetuses are not dead, but not sufficient to conclude that they are living, thus human. It might be true if alive and dead were a dichotomy. They are not. Even science has classifacitons, like non-living. What about humans who are brain dead, they are not alive, but they are not dead. Being not dead does not mean one is alive. If all A are B, then all B are not C. Thus, if all humans are alive, then all humans are not non-alive. Peace.

You appear to have badly misrepresented me. That was nowhere near an accurate summation of my argument, though it may have been my fault. I have reread my post though, and I'm still not sure where you got that, but I'll attempt to briefly restate. (BTW, if something is not A, it is therefore not-A. )

If a fetus is not dead, it is the opposite of dead, which is alive. (I'm unaware of a third option.)

All animals of the group homo are human beings
A fetus is an animal of the group homo
Therefore it is a human being.

The UDHR declares that all members of the human family fundamentally have the inalienable right to life, therefore all human beings have the legal right to life.

If a human fetus does not legally have the right to life, then not all human beings have the legal right to life.

The human fetus does not have the legal right to life...
(and this is where logic must take us...)
Therefore, not all human beings have the inalienable right to life.

Some human beings do not have the inalienable right to life.
The majority of human beings have the inalienable right to life.
Therefore a minority of human beings is not included in "equal and inalienable rights," thus logically precluding both their "inalienable" nature as applied to all human beings and their claim of equality.

Since laws are based on concrete definitions, it is illogical to attempt to subjectively change an already clearly defined term stated in a law. I don't care about personal opinion. What we subjectively desire is irrelevant to what is objectively there. If it is arbitrary to use taxonomy to argue rights for fetuses, it is equally arbitrary to use taxonomy to argue rights for non-caucasians. If my subjective personal judgment is all that matters, then I can say with equal authority and justification that black people are not human beings. How would you refute me? Not by appealing to my emotions, I hope! Black people are human beings because they are members of the human species. That's all. Whether they walk, see, laugh, or think is completely irrelevant to this non-arbitrary fact.

So the question is: Do we have the right to kill a human being for the sake of privacy and personal convenience? For this is the grounds on which killing the violinist is dependent. Unless he (or she) is threatening your life, the only motive is personal comfort. Do we have the right to destroy a human being for our personal comfort? Though in this society we obviously do, this is not a beneficial law for a society to enact. Societies that provide this right to the vocal majority of their members are considered oppressive, not free. It is ironic that we can arbitrarily take away human being's life and by doing so his freedom, but not just his freedom alone. We can't own slaves, but we can have abortions and kill siamese violinists.

pleasant_darktwist

Darktwist:? if something is not A, it is not A. OK.
However, If something is not A, it could be B-Z. ;-)

Darktwist: Dr. Rick successfully reputed this in an earlier post, this would include non-human animals (read not homo sapiens sapiens), and I'm sure the UN has no interest in Monkeys.

Darktwist: You have yet to prove at what point a group of cells does become a human, with rights? What of the rights of the mother? What does the UDHR, say happens when the rights of one being contradicts another? Where does the 'nose begin' for a fetus, and where does a woman's "freedom end"?

A peice of paper does not make a fetus a human, but the agreement of those involved. Why not email the writers of UDHR, and ask them if fetuses are covered.

This is also the basis of governance and society: general agreement and adherence to certain norms.


[QUOTE]LWF: (snip)If it is arbitrary to use taxonomy to argue rights for fetuses, it is equally arbitrary to use taxonomy to argue rights for non-caucasians. If my subjective personal judgment is all that matters, then I can say with equal authority and justification that black people are not human beings. How would you refute me? Not by appealing to my emotions, I hope! Black people are human beings because they are members of the human species. That's all. Whether they walk, see, laugh, or think is completely irrelevant to this non-arbitrary fact.

Darktwist:Actually since you delight in splitting heirs (lol) in this argument, taxonomy is very arbitrary. There are flowers of the same species that have different colored buds. And, if you peeled the skin off everyone, we would be the same. Color is not necessarily a good example of taxonomical difference. I thought you said science wasn't subjective anyway, so you could not use your personal feelings about people of different colors or cultures. Now if there were a class of humans that gave birth through their belly buttons, or lived underwater, then MAYBE you would have a argument for a taxonomical difference.

darktwistThat is correct.

Peace.

Dr Rick

True, and also extraordinarily ironic coming from someone whose argument all along has been dependent upon substituting his definition for the legal one.

That is not the definiton in the law. That definition is not the one used by either the UDHR or by the United States. It is the definiton you are trying to insert into the law even though the law says sometheing else. That you subjectively prefer this definition and can even find it in one or more dictionaries does not mitigate what you have clearly acknowledged: "it is illogical to attempt to subjectively change an already clearly defined term stated in a law," yet that is just what you are doing:

Here is what it actually 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...

That's in the preamble; Here's what in the UNDHR articles:

Article 1 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights:All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

The articles incorporated into a legal document such as the Constitution or the UN UDHR are what specify it's reach, governance and limitations, not the preamble. The UNUDHR very clearly defines rights for those that have been born.

And, in case that's not enough, here's the legal definition of the term, human being, by US law:

...In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', 'human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development...Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section.[emphasis added]

The legal definition of human being is crystal clear. It's not just my definition, it's not your definiton; it's the legal definition. It's the very thing you assert is "illogical to attempt to subjectively change" as you attempt to subjectively change it.

Your argument by your own acknowledgement is illogical, and it only gets worse. When the discrepancies between your definition and the legal definitions are pointed-out, rather than concede your error, you compound it with more nonsense:

It's there in black-and-white, but you nonetheless insist that it must mean something to your liking, and not what it says, by once again contradicting yourself and asserting your own definiton, this time with the word, born:

You are the one that is contradictory, lwf, and your equivocation of terms only makes your arguement look even more silly.

Rick

long winded fool

But if A represents alive and not-A represents not-alive, then what would B and Z represent?

:banghead: Monkeys are not animals of the family Hominidae and of the group homo, and there are no non-human animals in this category.

A group of cells becomes a human and attains inalienable human rights when it becomes identifiable as an individual representative of the species of human. This is what equal and inalienable human rights guarantee. If a biologist can perceive that a group of cells are an individual growing member of the species homo sapiens sapiens and not simply a separated portion of an already existing human being, the cells are a human being. All human beings have rights according to the UDHR. Not all human beings have rights according to Roe vs. Wade.

The rights of the mother are identical to the rights of every other human being on the planet. (according the UDHR, not Roe vs. Wade.) The mother cannot be killed for convenience by her fetus. If this is a threat, the fetus can be killed in self-defense. By Roe vs. Wade, the mother of an unborn fetus has more legal rights than any other human being. She can legally kill for pleasure. No other human being is allowed to do this. The mother's freedom ends (or ought to end) where all other human beings' freedom ends. We are all free to protect our own privacy, to do with our bodies as we please, and to pursue happiness. We are NOT free to take the life of another human being for personal convenience. (Again, all according to the UDHR.) Roe vs. Wade has granted a select group of the population the right to kill for convenience. Not rational.

A peice of paper does not make a fetus a human, but the agreement of those involved. Why not email the writers of UDHR, and ask them if fetuses are covered.

This is also the basis of governance and society: general agreement and adherence to certain norms.


If human fetuses are not covered by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, then the UDHR must logically lose all authority. Human rights cannot be universal if they preclude human beings based on something other than the fact of their membership in the human family. Roe vs. Wade effectively eliminates the UDHR from law. As long as abortion is legal, the UDHR is nothing more than an obsolete reminder of when human rights used to be equal.

It is impossible to agree and adhere to conflicting laws.