yguy

The burden of proof is upon the one who accepts it. I have not made the assertion here that God exists; you, on the other hand, HAVE asserted that He does not.

Thank you, I stand corrected. We cannot justly take it away without His permission.

Then you don't know where they came from - you just know where your teacher TOLD you they came from.

I haven't yet proposed that. I have only said that they cannot come from society or a king or the like.

Nobody has to prove anything. However, the idea that rights come from society stands rotten before the light of reason until you can resolve the obvious problems it has.

Dr Rick

What obvious problem is that?

Rick

Loren Pechtel

Not really much of a refutation.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by long winded fool
There is no line to be drawn. I cannot have the right not to be blocked by contraception or abstinence. Only sperm and egg cells can have those rights. Humans cannot be physically blocked by contraception or abstinence. Human rights only apply to humans by definition.

Are you saying they aren't human eggs and human sperm?

The definition of human being doesn't cut it for you? Why not? Does the definition of apple cut it for you?

That definition does not specify whether the fetus is a person or not.

Why? My conclusion is not that a fetus is a human being. That is my premise.

And that's what we are objecting to. You are assuming your conclusion in your argument.

If you disagree that a fetus is a human being, then you are unfamiliar with the definition of the word human being.

Got a scientific definition that includes the fetus? (Note: Dictionaries represent common usage and sometimes the bias of their creator, and thus are untrustworthy on technical, controversial issues.) The fetus is certainly human but is it a human being?

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by yguy
It doesn't matter. Consciousness is not understood well enough for anyone to state with authority whether a zygote has conscoiusness or not. Personally, I doubt that it does, but it could easily come before development of a central nervous system, IMO.

Well, you don't know much about how the body functions! Conciousness is a function of the brain. If the brain doesn't function then there is no conciousness. The zygote has no brain. Therefore the zygote has no conciousness.

The last time I was unconscoius, I had no sensory input, and no thoughts - but I knew I was there. Intelligence is not consciousness.

Nope--you didn't know you were there.

Even if that's true, it hardly follows ineluctably that zygotes lack consciousness because they lack what we call a brain. We are dealing with radically different physiological mechanisms in a zygote.

No, we aren't.

long winded fool

And you once again conveniently ignore my response to this. You have yet another strawman, Dr. Rick. (Not surprising, since only a strawman can refute the pro-life argument.) Never did I assert that fetuses can only logically be included in the phrase "All are born with dignity and rights." You are not arguing honestly and I know from "slippery slope" that you are aware that you're incapable of honestly refuting my argument. All you can do when you run out of erroneous accusations of "fallacies" is resort to rhetoric, trying to convince others that you must be right by pretending to be completely sure of yourself. When someone is confident in their argument, they don't resort to such displays of bravado and such one-dimensional attempts at intimidation. Your discomfort shows in your pretensions. When you tire of me pointing out the flaws in your application of logic, you simply declare me refuted to everyone else and call me incapable of reason, (an accusation I'm not sure many who post here would agree with) instead of actually addressing my argument and responding to my challenges. These, it's become repeatedly clear, are always a last resort for your. It is easy to see why.

long winded fool

No. I'm saying they aren't human beings. There is a difference between nouns and adjectives.

LWFThe definition of human being doesn't cut it for you? Why not? Does the definition of apple cut it for you?

LPThat definition does not specify whether the fetus is a person or not.

Why is this relevant? Just because all persons have inalienable rights doesn't mean that only persons can have inalienable rights. In fact this is not any truer than saying only scuba divers have inalienable rights because all scuba divers have inalienable rights. This is the purpose of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. If slaves are not defined as persons, they still have rights because they're human beings. Persons have rights. Fetuses, slaves, the mentally retarded, also have rights if human rights are equal, whether one wants to define them as people or not. Because human being is a clear and well-defined thing, it is used instead of person. Person is nebulous and results in discrimination. It is impossible to discriminate against humans and remain logical if all humans are universally equal in rights. Therefore it is impossible to discriminate against fetuses and remain logical.

LWFWhy? My conclusion is not that a fetus is a human being. That is my premise.

LPAnd that's what we are objecting to. You are assuming your conclusion in your argument.

No I'm not. I'm assuming a premise that a fetus is a human being. The conclusion is that legal abortion is not logical. If you disagree with my premise, you need to show that a fetus is not a living member of the family Hominidae and genus homo.

Got a scientific definition that includes the fetus? (Note: Dictionaries represent common usage and sometimes the bias of their creator, and thus are untrustworthy on technical, controversial issues.) The fetus is certainly human but is it a human being?

Do you have a definition of human being that includes Africans? Do you assume that, though Africans are not mentioned in the definition of human being, they are still specifically included since they are members of the species homo sapiens sapiens, which is a species of human being? Fetuses need not be specifically included in the definition of human being, since it is as logically impossible to exclude them as it is to exclude Africans.

yguy

In humans ex utero that is true, AFAIK. It is not known to be true for zygotes, even though it is a temptingly obvious conclusion based on the state of present science - just as was the conclusion that a ship sailing over the horizon would certainly fall off the edge of the earth.

Non sequitur.

You're a liar.

Really? When's the last time you grew a heart since you've been born?

Dr Rick

And never did I claim you did. I posted exactly this:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Dr Rick
lwf aserts that human beings (born with dignity and human rights) neither includes nor excludes fetuses , which it may. If a statement about human beings may be made that does not include fetuses, then a statement about the human family may also be made that does not include fetuses. It doesn't have to exclude them, but it may. That contradicts the assertion that "they can only be logically included." Rick
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I did not claim that you are arguing that fetuses are born with rights; I posted that you didn't make such a claim; what could you possibly hope to accomplish by posting such blatant lies? The phrase "they can only be logically included" is in clear reference to your erroneous assertion about the meaning of the term "human family," and there is no honest way you could interpret that to mean that I was accusing you of claiming that "fetuses can only logically be included in the phrase 'All are born with dignity and rights.'"

Your lies are even worse than your reasoning, which ain't too good, either; you're still repeating the same fallacy even after it's been shown to be illogical:

Fetuses can be excluded from the term; as in "All human beings are born with dignity and human rights" from the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, because they aren't born at all.

If the sentence, "All human beings are born with dignity and human rights" does not logically have to include fetuses in the UNDHR, then other references to human beings in the document don't have to either; they may, but they don't have to. Therefore it is possible to discriminate against fetuses and remain logical.

This refutation of your fallacious reasoning has been posted before; persistently repeating it won't make it any less irratiional.

You are not arguing honestly and I know from your posts that you are aware that you're often dishonest and unreasonable. All you can do when you run out of logical fallacies is resort to outright lies, trying to convince others that you must be right by claiming you didn't post what you posted, or claiming someone else posted something they didn't. When someone is decent and rational, they don't resort to such dishonesty. Your discomfort shows in your pretensions. When the flaws in your reasoning are pointed out to you, you simply repeat and reword your fallacious assertions. You appear incapable of reason, (an accusation I'm sure many who post here would agree with) instead of actually addressing my argument and responding to my challenges. It is hard to understand why you would want to make such a fool of yourself.

Rick

Salmon of Doubt

yguy, are you seriously suggesting that fetuses have consciousness from the instant they are concieved, without needing a brain?! Because you appear to be saying that fetuses are so special they don't even need to conform to the laws of biology any more, and miraculously achieve consciousness even at the single cell stage, later giving up this mysterious mechanism of consciousness in favour of the CNS. Because I got to tell you, that doesnt help your credibility if that's what you're saying.


And if you really believe that, you're deluded.