Dr Rick

Refutation of your argument has been quite easy and already done because both your reasoning and your interpretation of the law are erroneous.

Here is a summary of the refutation already on this thread across several posts.

You began by falsely asserting the law; you incorrectly claimed that the Constitution grants fetuses "inalienable rights" and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to fetuses.

So right from the start your argument is fatally flawed because your assumptions are demonstratably false: neither document applies to fetuses; if they did, abortion would be illegal. BTW, the Constitution does not say anything about "inalienable rights;" you've confused it with the Declaration of Independence. That kind of error doesn't speak well to your knowledge of the law.

It then gets worse. After making your false assumptions, you inject your own values, and then insist that they are all based upon logic.

You assert that fetuses have a right to life, and that this right supercedes pregnant womens' rights to privacy and freedom. Then, without any further clarification, you arbitrarily subordinate fetuses' rights to womens' rights under conditons specified by you ie. when a woman's health is endangered. You start with false assumptions, insert your own subjective opinions, and then say that your argument is "logical."



Your argument speaks poorly of your reasoning skills and understanding of morals.

Morals do not lend themselves to logic because they are value-based. You are entitled to your own set of values, but attempting to defend them with logic is a difficult task fraught with pitfalls; pitfalls in this case which are magnified by your own fallacious reasoning and ignorance of the law.

Rick

Alan P

Well, I don't really care about laws. Morality and Law have always been two separate things. I am certainly not a lawyer, but I would like to think of myself as a philosopher, albeit perhaps a bad one.

Well, the person closest to the individual in question should clearly be the one with the most say on the matter. That would be the mother, in the case of abortion.

I would argue that if you and your wife are the only people in the world, and you were to kill her in her sleep, then really, you are not doing anything wrong to her. How could you be if she was not aware of it?
Of course, in reality, it would be likely that your wife would have parents, siblings etc., that would mourn her death, and so killing her would be wrong. This cannot be compared to the case of an unborn child, because a fetus has not yet made any impact on society, or made any bonds. You, as a stranger, could concievable go up to a mother that was considering an abortion and say "I love your child, do not kill it otherwise you are doing wrong by me", and she would have to take on board whether or not you really felt like that, or whether you were lying. Considering we are talking about a person that has not even been born yet, let alone made aquaintance with you, it would be far more likely to be the latter.

Are you talking about the American Constitution? Since when has that had the slightest thing to do with morality? You do realise that your constitution could be wrong, don't you?

So basically what you're saying is that there is a contradiction in American law as regards murder and abortion? Well, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't, that's something for the lawyers to correct.
All that would have to be done is add "or has yet to be born", right after your "unless said creature is threatening the life of another hominid of the group homo."

long winded fool

Which is the point of the argument. Law says one thing but practices differently.

You are basing your arguments on semantics that fall apart if you use "person" instead of "human".

Why in the world would I change my premise? To say that it is only logical if my premise can be interchanged with yours is a fallacy.

Your argument is based on semantics only.

Semantics: The meaning of words.
Noun: person place or thing
Adjective: used with a noun to express a quality or attribute.

Murder is unlawful killing. What law?!

Begging the question. Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. The above is a non sequitur. Why is it unlawful?

If two standards are not in actual conflict there is no reason to think one is inherently wrong.

Agreed. If they are in conflict though, at least one (if not both) is wrong.

Ok, now you at least seem willing to accept it. Before you were trying to dismiss it.

I said I agreed that abolishing abortion would be inconvenient and difficult to enforce. This can be dismissed from the argument because it is a red herring and has nothing to do with the logic of the argument, just like the actions of Hitler can be dismissed from the argument about evolution.

If your argument is valid it will stand up even if you don't use the word human. Wanna try it?

And what do you base this on? Is this some new logic that I've yet to learn? Since when must I be able to change my premises to something else in order for my conclusion to be logical?

The fruit of a Citrus Aurantium is orange. It is also an orange.

Would the premise of this argument have to apply to apple trees in addition to orange trees to be logical? On the contrary, this would make the argument unsound. The fruit of an apple tree is neither orange, nor an orange.

So you admit you're the one redefining humanity?

Absolutely not. Check a dictionary. A human being is any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae of the group homo. All homo sapiens sapiens are human beings. All persons are also human beings under your definition, but not all human beings are persons. Because they are inalienable human rights, changing the meaning to person would not follow.

Or recognize that what the law protects are persons, not merely human beings.

This is patently false. The law protects persons only when persons is synonymous with human beings. There are too many definitions of "person." Why should the law follow your definition? Human being is a far more concise definition than person. Did you know that "person" can refer to an individual among the higher animals? Why can't I choose this definition and say that killing a higher animal is murder? Luckily I don't need to use this. They are not inalienable person rights, they are inalienable human rights. Officially change this and maybe you'll have an argument.

AlanP
So basically what you're saying is that there is a contradiction in American law as regards murder and abortion? Well, maybe there is, and maybe there isn't, that's something for the lawyers to correct.
All that would have to be done is add "or has yet to be born", right after your "unless said creature is threatening the life of another hominid of the group homo."

This is exactly correct. And since fetuses are not expressly excluded, they must be included until they are expressly excluded. Otherwise you have a contradiction.

Dr.Rick
You began by falsely asserting the law; you incorrectly claimed that the Constitution grants fetuses "inalienable rights" and that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to fetuses.

So right from the start your argument is fatally flawed because your assumptions are demonstratably false: neither document applies to fetuses; if they did, abortion would be illegal. BTW, the Constitution does not say anything about "inalienable rights;" you've confused it with the Declaration of Independence. That kind of error doesn't speak well to your knowledge of the law.

It then gets worse. After making your false assumptions, you inject your own values, and then insist that they are all based upon logic.

You assert that fetuses have a right to life, and that this right supercedes pregnant womens' rights to privacy and freedom. Then, without any further clarification, you arbitrarily subordinate fetuses' rights to womens' rights under conditons specified by you ie. when a woman's health is endangered. You start with false assumptions, insert your own subjective opinions, and then say that your argument is "logical."

You're right. Abortion is not illegal and fetuses do not have the right to life. You have refuted this argument.

My argument shows why the above is illogical and it has not been refuted. I know we both have been misusing the term "straw man" frequently, but this actually is an example of a straw man argument. You've changed my argument and then refuted it.

Bumble Bee Tuna
long winded fool:

Why must women be forced to keep a fetus alive, but I can't force you to donate a kidney to save a life?

If you do not support forcing someone to save someone's life through donating parts of their bodies, it follows that you cannot support forcing someone to carry a fetus to term. If you still draw this conclusion, it can only e because abortion is actively killing in your eyes instead of just not providing support. What if, then, a pregnant women simply had an abortion where they just cut the umbilical cord? She's not killing it now, just no longer being forced to support it.

Also: You keep talking about "humans" "human beings" and 'inalienable rights". You also claim that your position is based entirely on logic. Where is the logic of these inalienable rights? You haven't supported that statement.

-B

Good question. I don't know why it is logical for all human beings to have inalienable human rights. However, for better or for worse they do in this country, and this is what my argument it based on.

Cutting the umbilical cord would be actively killing an unborn embryo. I don't think the comparison to organ donation logically follows. The mother should not be legally bound to support another human life, she should be denied the right destroy a human life that is already under her support, unless her life is in danger. These are clearly separate circumstances. I'm not legally bound to take care of a child. I AM legally bound to take care of a child, if a child happens to fall under my responsibility, for as long as the child is my responsibility. I can try to avoid being responsible for a child, however if I fail, I'm stuck. If I donate my kidney and decide I want it back, it is illegal for me to take it back. This is analogous to a woman getting pregnant by consensual sex. If my kidney is forcibly removed and inserted into another human being, it is illegal for me to take it back. This is analogous to a woman getting pregnant through non-consensual sex. The person who removed my kidney should be punished to the full extent of the law. The person's right to life who is surviving with my kidney overrules my right to my kidney.

Women should not be forced to get pregnant. They should be denied the right to kill their offspring. The reason I use words like "should" and "ought" is not because I think my morals are superior. It is because in order for the laws to follow logically, these things must be the case. They are used with the connotation, "If we wish to be logical, we should..."

Loren Pechtel

[B]Originally posted by long winded fool
You are basing your arguments on semantics that fall apart if you use "person" instead of "human".

Why in the world would I change my premise? To say that it is only logical if my premise can be interchanged with yours is a fallacy.

No. I'm saying that you can't set your argument up without relying on the dual meaning of human. A restriction on your vocabulary that does not preclude communicating the concept should not stop you. If it does then something is wrong with your argument.

Murder is unlawful killing. What law?!

Begging the question. Murder is the premeditated killing of a human being. The above is a non sequitur. Why is it unlawful?

Nope. The premeditated killing of a human can be legal. The circumstances are rare but they do exist (and I'm not talking about war, either.) The human in question may even be innocent.

Absolutely not. Check a dictionary. A human being is any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae of the group homo. All homo sapiens sapiens are human beings. All persons are also human beings under your definition, but not all human beings are persons. Because they are inalienable human rights, changing the meaning to person would not follow.

Then an egg is a person.

A line must be drawn somewhere.

Or recognize that what the law protects are persons, not merely human beings.

This is patently false. The law protects persons only when persons is synonymous with human beings.

No. There are human beings that are not persons and not protected. Those in an irreversible coma, for example.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I don't think you are legally bound to care for a child. If I take a kid to you, tell you you have to watch him, and then run away, what law forces you to watch him? What law is going to punish you if you don't do so?

Cutting the umbilical cord would certainly NOT be actively killing the fetus. It would just be ceasing to provide support. There is no way it will survive without the support, but it will die on it's own, not from being killed.

All legal documents do not use precise scientific wording. That's what the court system is for, to interpret the laws. You are assuming you know the exact interpretation of the law that its authors intended. You do not. You claim to be trying to make the law more "logical" but the law of the land states that the Supreme Court decides on the proper interpretation of the law, and they've decided: It does not apply to fetuses. It is illogical for you to claim that the judicial branch does not have the right interpretation when the law states that it does.

It naturally follows that people have less rights the younger they are. Children have less rights than adults. And if you want to try to claim that they still have the same "inalianable rights", please inform us as to what those are? I would assume that you mean "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or 'life, liberty, and property", but children do NOT have liberty. And fetuses definitely cannot pursue happiness if they are not developed enough to even feel happiness yet. So it appears the inalienable rights are not so inalienable at all.

-B

pilaar

long winded fool, you have not addressed my point as to why the woman should carry the sole responsiblity for the murder if abortion is made illegal.

Your reasoning on murder charges is not objective nor logical. You said a number of times that women get away with murder, and men do not. That if one law applies for the men, then it should also apply for women. You fail to see that women get charged for all murders which men get charged for already. Women get charged when murdering a child, teenager, pregnant woman, adult, armed robery murder, killings due to drink driving etc. Which murders do men get charged and women do not?

On the other hand, conception occurs after both man and woman had sex. Both egg and sperm are needed for conception. Both man and woman have failed with contraception. You said that if unwanted conception does occur, then woman has failed to protect herself from pregnancy, but equally, man has failed to keep sperm to himself. When both man and woman do want to terminate, woman ends up being the one who has to go through the abortion, and yet you are proposing to charge the woman with murder. And let the man get away with one! You have not mentioned the man involved in any of your posts. You have not suggested a murder charge for the man involved.

How is that logical or objective?????

pilaar

long winded fool

If a man aborts a fetus without the mother's consent, he alone should be charged with murder. If the woman gives consent, they should share the murder charge. If the woman acts alone she ought to take sole responsibility. The hand that causes the embryo's death should always be charged with murder as long as he or she is proven guilty of willful destruction of an innocent human being. This is both logical and objective. Doctors who perform abortions should all face murder charges, and the women who hire them should be thought of as hiring a professional to kill a human being. Fathers who support mothers who do this should be charged with aiding and abetting murder at the very least. All of course assuming my argument is sound.

Bumble Bee Tuna
I don't think you are legally bound to care for a child. If I take a kid to you, tell you you have to watch him, and then run away, what law forces you to watch him? What law is going to punish you if you don't do so?

Cutting the umbilical cord would certainly NOT be actively killing the fetus. It would just be ceasing to provide support. There is no way it will survive without the support, but it will die on it's own, not from being killed.

All legal documents do not use precise scientific wording. That's what the court system is for, to interpret the laws. You are assuming you know the exact interpretation of the law that its authors intended. You do not. You claim to be trying to make the law more "logical" but the law of the land states that the Supreme Court decides on the proper interpretation of the law, and they've decided: It does not apply to fetuses. It is illogical for you to claim that the judicial branch does not have the right interpretation when the law states that it does.

It naturally follows that people have less rights the younger they are. Children have less rights than adults. And if you want to try to claim that they still have the same "inalianable rights", please inform us as to what those are? I would assume that you mean "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" or 'life, liberty, and property", but children do NOT have liberty. And fetuses definitely cannot pursue happiness if they are not developed enough to even feel happiness yet. So it appears the inalienable rights are not so inalienable at all.

-B

It is illegal to knowingly put a child in a dangerous situation. If someone leaves a baby on your doorstep in the wintertime, it is illegal for you to leave it there. If it dies and it can be proven that you knowingly didn't take the necessary measures to prevent it and that these measures did not require you to put your life at risk, you can be charged with manslaughter along with the fellow who left it at your door. In any case, it is illegal to willfully end the life of any child whether it is in your care or not.

If cutting the umbilical cord of the fetus is not actively killing it, then closing the windpipe of an infant is not actively killing it. It is merely ceasing to provide oxygen to its brain. The baby dies naturally. Cutting the umbilical cord of a fetus for the purpose of abortion ought to carry a murder charge if the laws of this country are objective and logical, and I refer to my previous argument as proof. If a mother doesn't feed her infant and it dies of starvation, is she not guilty of murder?

Certainly inalienable rights can be forfeit. Even the right to life can be forfeit as the penalty for a serious crime, or as mercy for the family of an unsalvageable coma victim on the verge of death. What is the motive for revoking the right to life of the fetus, assuming all humans have this inalienable right before it is forfeit? The fetus fits neither of the above reqirements for forfeiting its right to life. If all humans do not principally have the right to life, then the laws stating that they do are wrong. If the law can be reinterpreted without being redefined, then I can own slaves since slaves by default aren't guaranteed any inalienable rights just like fetuses. Slaves are humans but they do not have "personhood," because I, who already am a person, have the right to declare criteria that a human must achieve for personhood, and to decide the rights of those who fail to meet my criteria. Slaves are sub-persons by my definition and therefore not entitled to the same rights as persons. Is this any less logical than abortion? If the Supreme Court fails to logically interpret the law, then their interpretation must be invalidated and the laws must be reinterpreted. I have shown that they have failed to use objective logic when interpreting the right to life. Despite the unrest reinterpreting the laws would cause among the liberal majority, I think standing up for truth and rationality is more important than getting votes. But alas, I am in the minority with this principle. I don't argue with you there.

Loren Pechtel
No. I'm saying that you can't set your argument up without relying on the dual meaning of human. A restriction on your vocabulary that does not preclude communicating the concept should not stop you. If it does then something is wrong with your argument.

I am not relying on the dual meaning of human. My argument has always used the word human as a noun, except when clarifying the difference between a noun and an adjective. The difference between orange and an orange is embarassingly clear to most english-speaking people above the second grade and neither word needs redefinition to avoid confusion. The restriction of the word person does preclude communicating the concept because, though all persons are human beings, not all human beings are persons. My argument also becomes impotent if I use scuba divers instead of humans. All scuba divers are human beings, but not all human beings are scuba divers. Scuba divers ought not have the monopoly on inalienable rights any more than persons ought to, since the law clearly states that inalienable rights belong to human beings. Since the premise of my argument deals with human beings, (which includes all persons and scuba divers) it is more rational to use the fundamental word "human being" than the superfluous word "persons" or "scuba divers."

Bumble Bee Tuna

Well, the big difference here is that the mother is providing sustenance herself from her own body to support a fetus whereas the infant is getting oxygen on his own, supporting himself. In one, you cease to support the fetus, and in the other, you prevent the child from supporting itself. Big difference.

Faulty assumption. Humans do not have the right and then it is revoked. Humans are given this right by our laws. The laws give the right to life at birth, the right to property at an undetermined time (I've never heard of the right to property coming up in law), and the right to liberty at age 18 (16?). They do not have the rights, they get them revoked for a short span of their life, then get them given back to them. Rights are a human invention, just like morality, designed to make society run smoother and more fairly. As such they are not innate. This is the fatal flaw to your argument. Fetuses do not have the right to life. It has been determined by the court, we have a constitution that is the ultimate law of the land that says the court's interpretation of the law is the right way to interpret the law. Therefore, if we want our laws to be completely logical as your sole driving force appears to be, we should listen to the Supreme Court.

No matter where you draw the line for who gets what rights, you're being arbitrary. If you draw the line at slaves not being people (by people I mean beings that have rights), you're arbitrary. If you draw the line at fetuses not being people, you're arbitrary. If you draw the line at animals not being people, you're being arbitrary. If you draw the line at plants not being people, you're being arbitrary. There is no reason that being human is the criteria for personhood except for that we said so. You're right, it is illogical to say that slaves aren't persons, or to say that animals aren't persons, or to say that fetuses aren't persons. Except I doubt you think ant-squashers should be prosecuted for murder...

-B

long winded fool

Yet not feeding a child under your responsibility until it dies is ceasing to support the child, not preventing the child from supporting itself.

I agree that rights are a human invention, however I do not think that they are arbitrary. That is what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was for. According to the United Nations, inalienable human rights are not arbitrary, and rights do not apply solely to persons. This is the faulty assumption. Rights are not recieved upon birth by any law guaranteeing human rights, though this is assumed by most to be the case. Human rights only become arbitrary like this when you use a definition of human being that is different from the scientific definition, and then apply this to law. All slavery denies the inalienable human rights of human beings, though slaves may be defined as non-persons, as does all murder, excepting self-defense. No where in the UDHR does it specify that slaves nor unborn humans nor cloned humans are excluded from the inalienable right to life. Yet this is often falsely assumed for the motive of convenience, and is subsequently supported by a contradictory law. Not logical.

Dr Rick

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.

Rick