dk

In a Democracy the greatest danger stems from a tyranny of the majority. But lets not completely forget about demogogues or the Judicial branches. Abortion rights (amongst many others) were litigated, not legislated. So we don’t suffer from a fascist style of tyranny. But this only raises the question of tyranny by a self anointed "judicial oligarchy" that usurps legislative powers with the power of judicial review. I think its fair to say the US borders on a Judicial Oligarchy supported by a emboldened President selected by a Supreme Court. I’m not saying the US is a tyranical government, merely pointing out a strong central governments becomes a sponge for power at the cost of powers reserved to the states and/or people.

yguy

On what grounds? Vox populi, vox dei, right? If white America decides tomorrow to rescind the humanity which they have so magnanimously bestowed upon blacks, things are just as they should be, and blacks have nothing to complain about.

Right? If not, why not?

long winded fool

I use the definition provided by the dictionary. What definition do you use? A single muscle cell from your thigh is not a human being because a single muscle cell from a human being's thigh is not an individual member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. A zygote is an individual (though dependent) member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. Therefore a zygote is a human being and a muscle cell is not. The definition I use is clear and objective and is available for anyone to access. Your definition is subjective and personal, not to mention completely nebulous, and therefore not permissible as a valid premise in logical discourse.

So you're saying that because everyone else is illogical, logic needn't play a part in your decision making process? Are you saying that the fact that the majority of people believe things that are based on fear and insecurity regardless of logic means that these things must be true? If you are then you cannot argue with theists, or anyone else who holds a different, equally subjective and personal opinion. If you aren't, then you must have some other authority besides subjective personal opinion on which you base your beliefs. If everything is relative to personal preference, then fundamentalist Christianity is intellectually equal to atheism. If, however, all beliefs are relative to an objective system of logic that is not subject to personal desires and agendas, then all logical beliefs are intellectually superior to all illogical beliefs. So unless you think that a given belief is only wrong because you don't personally like it, your personal authority is most likely objective logic and you fundamentally believe that illogical systems are inferior to logical ones, even if you are confused about which is logical and which is not. Legal abortion is an illogical system. If you disagree, let's discuss the logic behind it and ignore how disallowing certain freedoms that women have and men do not in a society of supposedly equal rights makes us personally feel.

If, on the other hand, you're merely pointing out that people are illogical in general and are drawing no conclusions from this, then you are absolutely right. To what subjective emotional desires do I think one could appeal to convince the masses? I don't use manipulation in arguments. This is a logical fallacy. I'd rather ignore the subjective opinions and operate strictly with facts and logic.

I personally hate the idea of forcing a thirteen-year-old rape victim to bear her rapist's child. This hatred alone should not influence my decision on whether or not I think it ought to occur. Logic alone (should) affect all my decisions. I desire inalienable and equal rights for all human beings because without this it must always be majority rule, and I realize that the majority is frighteningly self-absorbed and illogical. When it comes to human rights, (especially the right to life) there needs to be an absolute standard. Not enslaving and killing whoever we feel like enslaving and killing. I also realize that declaring all human beings to be equal regardless of the desires of the majority is the only way to guard against legal human discrimination and all the evils (racism, sexism, slavery, oppression, abortion) that arise from it. The only logical and enforcable absloute standard is that all human beings have the right to life until they threaten the right to life of another. Therefore, it is far more kind hearted to far more people for a far longer period of time to make it illegal in a society of equal rights for a rape victim to have an abortion.

JGL53

On what grounds? My opinions are based on my best understanding, beyond a reasonably doubt. Who's reason? - my reason. Who's doubt? - my doubt. Is there some other method I should employ?

The sentence following your initial two questions makes little if any sense to me. The law is what it is, for better or for worst. The question of whether laws are "as they should be" comes under the heading of opinion. And how many times do I have to say it - consensus opinion rules. NOT because it is 'right' - I'm not saying that - it rules because it rules - there is no other power know of that trumps it.

Most people today agree that blacks are humans. I doubt we will ever go back to slavery or racial segregation. If I wake up one morning and blacks all over the U.S. are being led away in chains, I will just as shocked as you would be. And blacks would have a LOT to complain about.

And what would you do - just sit there and say "But this can't be happening, because there is an absolute truth that blacks are human. I must be dreaming this.". It happens once and, theoretically, it could happen again. Your 'absolute truth' would be kicked under the rug.

But such a moral recidivism is not a realistic consideration, though - I view it in the same category as the chance that the movie "Independence Day" will become a reality next week.

BTW, you have avoided answering my question for several posts now. Who or what has the power to trump human law? If there is no such entity, then the question of the legality of abortion is a human consensus decision, regardless of what it decided. So what about all this don't you understand?

yguy

On the grounds that the voice of the people is the voice of God. Is that a misrepresentation of your position?

It makes perfect sense to me, if we accept your contention that blacks have been granted their humanity by whites.

Why? Wouldn't that just be vox populi - aka God - enforcing its will? On what grounds would they complain? That justice demands they be given their humanity? If that's the case, how can justice trump consensus? If consensus is effectively God, it can't.

So blacks wouldn't be human any more, just because we said so?

Of course I have. As I said before, it would be meaningless to a person who thinks humanity can be granted - and therefore denied - with the stroke of a pen.

JGL53

Correct me if I'm wrong but the constitution and our laws refer to 'persons', not 'human beings'. A person, a human zygote, and a cell from my thigh are, or will be under some circumstance, a unique specimen (member implies person) of the human species. If a muscle cell from my thigh in kept in a petra dish and I die and am cremated, then that cell is 'an individual and unique' exampe of the human species. It it not a person. It could be cloned, in theory, once the technology for this advances sufficiently, and is therefore a 'potential' person. Human cells are not human beings. Human cells are not persons. Unless one wishes to believe this. A single cell or mass of cells too small to be seen by the human eye is a person or a human being? I don't think so. Uniqueness by itself or DNA by itself does not a person or a human 'being' make.

[/B][/QUOTE] So you're saying that because everyone else is illogical, logic needn't play a part in your decision making process? Are you saying that the fact that the majority of people believe things that are based on fear and insecurity regardless of logic means that these things must be true? [/B][/QUOTE]

No and no. I'm merely stating the pragmatic facts with which people like you will have to deal in order to win the day. Logic should obvious play the main part in important decisions. And nothing must be true, unless you are god. I'm an atheist, including the question of your alleged godly powers of discernment.

[/B][/QUOTE] .... you must have some other authority besides subjective personal opinion on which you base your beliefs. [/B][/QUOTE]

No I don't. And neither do you, or any other human being who has ever lived.

[/B][/QUOTE]
If everything is relative to personal preference, then fundamentalist Christianity is intellectually equal to atheism. If, however, all beliefs are relative to an objective system of logic that is not subject to personal desires and agendas, then all logical beliefs are intellectually superior to all illogical beliefs. So unless you think that a given belief is only wrong because you don't personally like it, your personal authority is most likely objective logic and you fundamentally believe that illogical systems are inferior to logical ones, even if you are confused about which is logical and which is not.[/B][/QUOTE]

Christianity and philosophical materialism are intellectually equal in the sence that neither (or any idea) can be proven ABSOLUTELY to be true.


[/B][/QUOTE] Legal abortion is an illogical system. If you disagree, let's discuss the logic behind it and ignore how disallowing certain freedoms that women have and men do not in a society of supposedly equal rights makes us personally feel. [/B][/QUOTE]

Huh? I don't see equal rights between men and women as being relevant. Women are the ones who get pregnant. The zygotes or fetuses are in THEIR bodies. They get to make the decision - unless someone forces their will on them.

[/B][/QUOTE] I personally hate the idea of forcing a thirteen-year-old rape victim to bear her rapist's child. This hatred alone should not influence my decision on whether or not I think it ought to occur. [/B][/QUOTE]

How about a raped eight year old, who is still playing with dolls? Force her too, right? Wow, aren't YOU a doll?

[/B][/QUOTE] Logic alone (should) affect all my decisions. I desire inalienable and equal rights for all human beings because without this it must always be majority rule, and I realize that the majority is frighteningly self-absorbed and illogical. When it comes to human rights, (especially the right to life) there needs to be an absolute standard. Not enslaving and killing whoever we feel like enslaving and killing. I also realize that declaring all human beings to be equal regardless of the desires of the majority is the only way to guard against legal human discrimination and all the evils (racism, sexism, slavery, oppression, abortion) that arise from it. The only logical and enforcable absloute standard is that all human beings have the right to life until they threaten the right to life of another. Therefore, it is far more kind hearted to far more people for a far longer period of time to make it illegal in a society of equal rights for a rape victim to have an abortion. [/B]
[/QUOTE]

Quite an eloquent speech. You're obviously a person with high moral standards. I admire you for that. But I don't agree that a zygote is a human being, or a person. So, in my opinion, and in the opinions of eighty-per cent of Americans, your high-minded moral stance is somewhat displaced.

to this point, I don't follow your logic on the abortion question. Just saying you are the one being logical doesn't convince anyone. Try harder.

JGL53

I agree with every point you made here, if we merely add the phrase "pragmatically or realistically speaking". So, nothing more to be gained by continuing this particular discussion.

Do you have anything else regarding abortion the readers of this thread should be exposed to, in your humble opinion? Lay it on us, bub.

yguy

I'm not going to waste another keystroke on an idiot like you. Enjoy.

Dominus Paradoxum

Long Winded Fool: Where on earth did you get this strage idea that something is morally valuable just because its a member of a certain species? Humanity, insofar as that means physical traits common to human animals, is worthless from a moral standpoint. 'Humanity' is only a consideration insofar it it means something like 'personhood'. And android that could think and feel just as we do would be a person, though it would certainly not be human. And not all killing is murder. If someone is about to be burnt at the stake, and I have a gun (let's suppose with only one bullet in it), ought I not shoot them and spare them a slow, agonising death? And if you say that the "right to life" prevails in such a case, then I say let your "right" be damned. There's no such thing as a "right to life". A person has a right to live if that is their choice, but it is to be respected because it is the choice of a person, and not because of some vitalistic "sanctity of life". The descisions of indviduals are sacred; life, in itself, is not. I hope you can see the difference.

long winded fool

You are wrong. Humans have rights, which logically (but not legally, of course) includes all persons, fetuses, and scuba divers. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all members of the human family have the inalienable right to life. In order to reconcile this with current abortion laws, "human being" must be redefined from its scientific definition to an entirely different, conflicting, and arbitrary legal definition to exclude unborn members of the human family. Simply assuming that "personhood" is what carries the right to life is not logical since "personhood" is not mentioned anywhere in law as criteria necessary for having the right to life. Yes all persons have the right to life. So do all scuba divers. If being a person were the only criterion, they would be inalienable personal rights. Since "person" can be easily defined to exclude certain human beings based on arbitrary criteria, the word "person" is specifically not used when outlining the rights of the members of this society. "Human being" is much harder to redefine, however we as a society of course have done this when we passed laws allowing abortion.

Zygotes are members of the human species. They are not recognized as human beings by law. This is not rational. It is true that all persons have the right to life. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other equal rights laws, all humans, regardless of personhood, also ought to have the right to life if the laws follow logically, however this is not the case.

.... you must have some other authority besides subjective personal opinion on which you base your beliefs.

No I don't. And neither do you, or any other human being who has ever lived.

But unless you believe that personal opinion always equals truth, then you do! How do you discern truth? How can one person ever be correct and another incorrect? I know that it is conceivable that two plus two does not equal four, yet we continue to teach this to our children. Why? If it is not absolutely provable, how can we allow our children to be taught this subjective thing if it is only dependent upon personal opinion for whether or not it's true? Can a thing be both A and not A? If subjective opinion = truth, then this must be true. And false...

Christianity and philosophical materialism are intellectually equal in the sence that neither (or any idea) can be proven ABSOLUTELY to be true.

If an idea cannot be proven absolutely true, is it logical to assume that it is false? 2+2=4? Since you can't prove it's true then can I logically conclude that it is false?

Huh? I don't see equal rights between men and women as being relevant. Women are the ones who get pregnant. The zygotes or fetuses are in THEIR bodies. They get to make the decision - unless someone forces their will on them.

So you are saying that a human being doesn't have legal rights if it is inside another human being? Why? Isn't this begging the question? What is it about location, level of development, etc. that warrants death? And whatever it is, why can't we extrapolate it to other humans in similar circumstances? (Incidentally, human beings inside other human beings do have legal rights. Killing a pregnant woman is a double count of murder.) If women get to make decisions involving death about other human beings' bodies, (fetuses) why can't I make a decision simply involving temporary pain and extreme inconvenience about their bodies? A woman can legally decide to kill an innocent human being and I can't even prevent it, much less engage in this behavior myself, when there is another equally powerful law, (not to mention my own conscience,) telling me that I probably ought to prevent the killing of any innocent human beings if I can. How does that work, exactly?

How about a raped eight year old, who is still playing with dolls? Force her too, right? Wow, aren't YOU a doll?

As long as her life is not put in jeopardy by doing so, absolutely. She should be physically forced to not have an abortion in the same way that she should be physically forced to not kill an infant. It is far more cruel to teach a child to kill another child than to teach her that the evil and intense suffering perpetrated upon her must be answered by the rapist and not his child. Returning death to an innocent under your responsibility for suffering perpetrated by a separate guilty party is a terrible lesson to teach a child. You can't take away the pain and responsibility by killing the fetus. Doing so only adds more of both. This should only be done to save the rape victim's life. If having the baby will kill her, then she could logically kill the baby in self-defense by the laws of this society.

Quite an eloquent speech. You're obviously a person with high moral standards. I admire you for that. But I don't agree that a zygote is a human being, or a person. So, in my opinion, and in the opinions of eighty-per cent of Americans, your high-minded moral stance is somewhat displaced.

I respect your personal opinion, and you have every right to hold it, but there is no logical basis for it that I can see. While you have the right to your opinion, I have the right to critically analyze it. I do not recognize your personal opinion as an authority by itself and I don't expect you to recognize my opinions as an authority either. You must provide a separate authority for me to accept your premise. The dictionary (an unbiased, objective authority, I would assume) defines a human as a member of the family Hominidae of the group homo. Human is the common name for our small group of species just like dog and cat. (An unborn cat is still a cat.) Any good biologist can tell what species a particular zygote is, and any good biologist can tell the difference between a piece of a particular species, and a full and living individual example of a species. A fetus is a human being based on the accepted scientific definition of human being. No individual cells or other parts of a human being are. This is all provable fact. A mass of cells in your thigh is not a human being no matter how much DNA they contain. A zygote growing in a woman is a human being no matter how little DNA it contains. This is proven simply by pointing out the objective, scientific definition of human being.

I do agree that a fetus is not necessarily a person. If rights only applied to people, then we'd have to examine what a person is to see whether fetuses fall into this category. I'd assume that by person you mean a "living self-conscious being, or moral agent." (It's interesting to note that many dictionaries simply define person as a "human being." They then, of course, define "human being" as I have above.) Even if "people" are only self-aware and reasoning beings, this introduces criteria that excludes certain human beings based on mental development. We as a society wisely decided that this is not the kind of laws we want in effect, therefore we drafted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in order to prevent the exclusion of a minority by law stemming from a reworking of who can be called a "person" and who can't. (Applying rights to all members of the human family logically includes the fetus in the category of those who have rights.) This makes sense to me. Why would we go back on it with Roe vs. Wade and the Born Alive Infants Protection Act? It can't be to protect "human rights" because fetuses are provably human. So what rights are they? Obviously they are women's rights. It is not logical to protect women's rights by taking away human rights.