long winded fool

Here is the miscomunication. I do not assert that human beings, apart from being born with dignity and rights, neither includes or excludes fetuses. A statement about human beings in general is always inclusive of fetuses. A statement about born human beings in general doesn't necessarily include fetuses, (being unborn human beings) but cannot be read to specifically exclude them without a word making the statement particular such as "only born humans." A satement about all members of the human family doesn't include any non humans. A statement about all members of the family Hominidae, can include any non humans which are members of the family Hominidae. "All members of the human family" cannot be read to include chimpanzees any more than "All members of the chimpanzee family" can be read to include humans. I admit that this is a confusing way of wording the application of rights to all and only humans, due to the fact that the family which humans belong to is Hominidae which includes non human hominids, but logically, the human family cosists of all and only those things which are humans and no things which are not humans. This can be the only rational interpretation.

I can see that "human family" could be read to imply Hominidae, but this is a logically erroneus interpretation. It allows for no distinction between the human family and the chimpanzee family. The members of the chimpanzee family are all and only those species of the family Hominidae and genus pan. Members of the hominid family include the chimpanzee family and the human family. All members of the human family cannot logically be read to include chimpanzees, but must include fetuses, until the word born is introduced. If "only born humans" were entitled to equal rights, then fetuses would not have equal rights. If "born humans" have equal rights, AND "all members of the human family" have equal rights, then unborn humans MUST be included in equal rights. The statement "born humans" carries no information about fetuses. The statement "all members of the human family" carries specific information about the fetus and includes it in the application of rights.

yguy

OK, in strictly logical terms I don't have a problem with this. The question then becomes whether it is more reasonable to include fetuses as members of the human family or not. Without regard to the intent of the UNDHR, it seems reasonable to me that they should be included, and I would ask those who think otherwise what logical grounds there are for excluding them.

Dr Rick

That seems reasonable to me.

Rick

Dr Rick

For these assertions to be true, all references to humans in the UNDHR must be inclusive of fetuses. To refute these assertions, one needs to show an example in the UNDHR where references to humans do not include fetuses, or as lwf put it:

Obviously we can. This doesn't mean that other references can't apply to fetuses, but it disproves the assertion that the human family must logically include fetuses.

The phrase "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" does not include fetuses, because fetuses aren't born.

This doesn't exclude them from any rights, but it contradicts the requirement that all references to humans in the UNDHR must logically include fetuses. They can, but they clearly don't have to.

It's clear that at least one reference in the UNDHR was not meant to include fetuses. The others may have been meant to, but they do not have to. That doesn't make the document illogical, but it logically refutes lwf's assertion that fetuses must be included in all references to humans because they are members of the human species.

What was illogical was the assertion by lwf that all references to humans in the UNDHR must logically include fetuses, because at least one reference does not. Some can, but there is no logical imperative that they must. We have met lwf's requirement for disproof of his assertion "to show logically that fetuses could be expressly excluded anywhere in the UDHR."

Rick

long winded fool

Nice try.

How? Because there is the modifier born before a single reference that cannot be read to exclude fetuses, it is logical to assume that all references to human beings can possibly be exclusive of fetuses? I think you need to reexamine this line or logic.

All red balls bounce.
I have a ball.
Therefore it obviously does not bounce.

Not all balls are red. Not all non-red balls necessarily do not bounce. My ball might be red and it might not. Therefore, the conclusion is false. There is no information in the argument that shows that it is obvious that my ball does not bounce.

The phrase "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" does not include fetuses, because fetuses aren't born.

This doesn't exclude them from any rights, but it contradicts the requirement that all references to humans in the UNDHR must logically include fetuses. They can, but they clearly don't have to.

False. It contradicts the requirement that "All born humans" must logically include fetuses. To contradict the requirement that "All members of the human family" must include fetuses, you must give an example of a human fetus that is not a member of the human family. The logic here is not hard. The word born cannot apply to "All members of the human family" in the context of the UDHR unless only born humans have rights, which is clearly not the case.

It's clear that at least one reference in the UNDHR was not meant to include fetuses. The others may have been meant to, but they do not have to. That doesn't make the document illogical, but it logically refutes lwf's assertion that fetuses must be included in all references to humans because they are members of the human species.

But all the others WERE meant to include fetuses by the logic you have presented. All humans must include all fetuses. Do you see that the exact same line of reasoning must include fetuses in the term "all humans" that excludes fetuses from the term "born humans." If you want to exclude fetuses from "all born humans" you must also include fetuses in "all humans." There are far more references to human beings including fetuses than there are to human beings not including fetuses.

What was illogical was the assertion by lwf that all references to humans in the UNDHR must logically include fetuses, because at least one reference does not. Some can, but there is no logical imperative that they must. We have met lwf's requirement for disproof of his assertion "to show logically that fetuses could be expressly excluded anywhere in the UDHR."

Rick

All references to the words "all humans" are and must be inclusive of fetuses being references to all members of the family Hominidae and genus homo. All references to "born humans" are references to humans that have been born only. Applying rights to all born humans means that all born humans have rights. No information about unborn humans can be drawn from this. "All members of the human family" must logically include all members of the human family. Unborn humans are members of the human family. "All born humans" need not include all members of the human family any more than "all humans walk the earth" need include all members of the human family. The word human means any human. The phrase "born human" means born human. This is painfully clear. Only with the modifier "born" can "human" be referring to only those humans who have been born. "All humans" MUST include unborn humans.

Logically, all references to humans must include fetuses, except for references to born humans, since fetuses are not born. If "only born humans" have rights, then the fetus can be assumed excluded from all other references to humans. If "all born humans" have rights, there is absolutely no logical precedent to interpret the word human to mean anything other than it's dictionary definition. The UDHR did not define their use of the word "humans" with the phrase "only born humans," therefore it is logical to use the dictionary definition of human wherever the word human appears. If the modifier excluded a certain definition of human from rights, as in "only born," then it would be logical to assume otherwise. Since the modifier merely shows that all born humans have rights, one must include unborn humans in any definition of human that is not being modified by the word born.

long winded fool

double post

Dr Rick

No, but it is stupid. The statement "all humans beings are born" is not equivalent to "all born humans."

As an example, the phrase "all human beings are people" could include fetuses, but the statement "all born humans are people" does not.

The UNHDR was refering to humans that are not fetuses, negating the assertion that all references to humans in the UNHDR must logically apply to fetuses.

LWF has repeatedly said that he would admit that his assertion was wrong if we could show him the error in his reasoning; I suspected that was a lie, and he's just shown that it was. I had said before that he was honest if nothing else, but now it seems that even that was giving him to much credit.

Rick

dk

Originally posted by Jinto
First, I am intellectually offended by your statement because even in it's revised form, it attempts to connect the validity of abortion to the character of it's proponents, which is pure ad hominem.
dk: Apart from being a smartass, I did try to make a serious point. Abortion is such a devisive issue because it forces us to commit. Commitments are important, wouldn't you agree?

Originally posted by Jinto
Second, contrary to your assertation, I do not have a commitment to abortion, which you should have figured out from my relative lack of interest in this thread. More to the point however, I find abortion acceptable because I do not regard fetuses as qualifying as human beings. I do NOT regard fetuses as not qualifying as human beings because I find abortion acceptable. In fact, the latter line of reasoning would be quite absurd. However, your post seems to imply this is my reasoning, and I would like to correct this misconception.
dk: Well if you're not commited then why not change your mind for a year, come over to the other side, just to see if it makes you feel better?

Originally posted by Jinto
Third, my reasons for not finding this a crime have nothing to do with callousness - I certainly sympathize with the plight of the mother, who now has a stillbirth on her hands. But while the prospective mother will almost certainly disagree with me on this, no one died in that hypothetical accident, and I would be guilty of a terrible miscarriage of justice if I let my sympathy for the victim get in the way of making a ruling based on the legal principles that I have set forth here.
dk: So what does mom get for 9 months of hard labor, a slap across the fanny for good luck?


Originally posted by Jinto
Fourth, I recognize that you disagree with me on the idea that the mother was the victim here. You are a proponent of the idea that a fetus qualifies as a human being. I do not agree with this idea, and therefore cannot be expected to treat a fetus as a human being. It's not that I am callous towards the needs of a fetus, I simply do not believe that it is deserving of higher legal regard than, say, the placenta. Accusing me of being callous towars human life (by which I assume you mean the life of human beings, rather than all human life, as I cannot see why you would have regard for the life of human skin cells) because I do not believe a fetus to qualify as a human being is like acusing me of being callous toward God's feeling because I don't believe that God exists. The analogy is stretched a little, but I hope you get the idea.

dk: Ok, lets say a 8 month pregnant Mom busts her water in the powder room at work (or even a prom). She scurries into a stall, sits down and delivers a live baby. She's had a bad day, so instead of making a fuss she cleans herself, sees the baby looks dead and tosses the corpse in the trash. What crime did she commit?

long winded fool

True. Do you agree that not all human beings are born? If not then you are changing the definition of human being from it's accepted definition to something else which is not logical.

As an example, the phrase "all human beings are people" could include fetuses, but the statement "all born humans are people" does not.

Correct. Fetuses cannot be read to be specifically included in the second example. They can in the first. The second example CANNOT refute the first unless the word "all" is replaced with the word "only."

The UNHDR was refering to humans that are not fetuses, negating the assertion that all references to humans in the UNHDR must logically apply to fetuses.

LWF has repeatedly said that he would admit that his assertion was wrong if we could show him the error in his reasoning; I suspected that was a lie, and he's just shown that it was. I had said before that he was honest if nothing else, but now it seems that even that was giving him to much credit.

Rick

Strawman. If you read my last post, my assertion was that all references to human beings not modified by the word born must apply to fetuses. Pointing out instances of the phrase "born humans" cannot refute this assertion. You claim that all references to humans need not include fetuses because of the occurance of the phrase "All humans are born free and equal." This is logically false.

Jinto

So then you are committed to the position that abortion is morally wrong?

I did presuppose the validity of the anti-abortionist position as part of a thought experiment. I found myself in the uncomfortable position of having to explain why I defended the right to life of something that is quite a bit less sentient than, say, my cat, but did not bomb animal shelters for putting unwanted animals to sleep. In addition, I was forced into the delimma of finding a practical solution to unwanted pregnancies in the absence of technologies that could be used to transfer an unborn fetus into a willing mother or an artificial uterus, noting that unwanted pregnancies included those resulting from rape or other sexual abuse. I was able to find no reasonable solution that did not involve assuming humans that followed my moral code perfectly. In conclusion, I found the position of anti-abortionism to be intellectually untenable.

Now, I reverse the question: why don't you come over to this side for a while to see if you're more comfortable here?

A good look at the "life sucks and then you die" perspective on life. I imagine though that the costs of unfullfilled pregnancy could be added to the general "pain and suffering" damages in the civil suit, so at the very least she'd be substantially richer. But that's civil court, and has nothing to do with criminal charges.

Since we've stipulated a live birth, then at the very least she gets manslaughter in the first degree. If this was a deliberate act comitted in full knowledge that the baby was alive, then she could even be charged with murder in the second degree. I should stress, however, that under any legal system the prosecutor's job would be difficult at best, since they would have to prove that the baby wasn't stillborn. Realistically, she'd probably walk.

BTW, if she was in a public location and giving birth, then why did she NOT recieve medical attention?