long winded fool

Why are the decisions of individuals sacred?

Dominus Paradoxum

I don't know. Why should an organism, simply because it is a member of a certain species, have a dubious "right to life"? Tell me that, and then I'll answer you. ( And please try to explain it without question-begginly assuming that organisms have the "right to life" you are to account for.) I think that, if a zygote has any rights at all, it has them because its a potential person, and not because of what species it belongs to.

Also, a human corpse is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens, is it not? Does it have a "right to life"? It seems that it must, if the right is really inalienable! Ought we try and preserve the corpse just in case future technology might revive it? What if the person specifies in their will that they wish to be cremated? And if they request that I scatter their ashes to the wind, do I carry out the request for the ashes? Because that's certainly all that's left of the human being.

JGL53

All the above is assumption and belief in what you wish to be true - unless you can ABSOLUTELY prove there is a god who has declared it to be ABSOLUTELY true. Failing that, you can deem your opinions absolutely sound logical pronouncements irrefutable by any other human beings all you want - I and most people (I would assume) ain't buying it.

Humans make laws. You are convinced you can PROVE to any and all objectively reasoning people that such and such a law is NECESSARILY illogical? Unless you are god, or speak for a god, you can't. Sorry.


[/B][/QUOTE] ... 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? [/B][/QUOTE]

This is why we will never see eye to eye. You think in terms of absolutes. Humans are fallible and finite in their knowledge and their ability to "know". It's illogical that you, a human being, could ever prove a moral (or scientific) absolute.

[[/B][/QUOTE] 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? [[/B][/QUOTE]

No. Yes (in base 10 mathematics. Apparently). No.


[[/B][/QUOTE]
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? [[/B][/QUOTE]

'We' (society) make the rules and can do anything 'we' want to - other than stuff like rescind the law of gravity. If there's a law that you think is illogical, and the majority (perversely, of course, since they are not listening to YOU) do not agree, the law stands. Do what you can within the law to change the law you see as illogical. Or start a violent revolution, if you think it important enough and non-violent ways aren't working to your satisfaction. Or maybe if you just keep explaining how the law is illogical, maybe someday you, and those who now agree with you, will persuade enough people to change the law. Lots of luck.


[[/B][/QUOTE] 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? [[/B][/QUOTE]

I would hope that if you, personally, physically tried to prevent some woman from having an abortion, you would get kicked in the nuts for your trouble. And since that might prevent future unwanted pregnancies, it would be a good thing.

[[/B][/QUOTE] ....If having the baby will kill her, then she could logically kill the baby in self-defense by the laws of this society. [[/B][/QUOTE]

Hoisted on your own absolutist petard, lwf, to wit:
(1.) No human being knows the future with absolute certainty. Agreed?
(2.) Then since a physician is a human being, he or she could not know with absolute certainty that allowing the pregnancy to procede will kill the eight-year old. It would be a 'judgement' call, in essense an educated guess.
(3.) so, under these circumstances of reality, by agreeing to allow the physician to perform the abortion, you have sanctioned an abortion - without any ABSOLUTE logic to defend your sanctioning. You have agreed to an abortion based on the POSSIBILITY that self defense is justified - exactly like (one of)Bush's 'reasons' for ordering the attack Iraq - that there was a POSSIBILITY of aggression from Saddam.

I am greatly disappointed in you, lwf. I was considering excepting your obvious stance that you are incapable of moral or logical error (after all, you figured out on your own that A=A, right?), but now I see that you are just as capable of false reasoning as the rest of us mere humans.


[[/B][/QUOTE] 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 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. [[/B][/QUOTE]

Please. Definitions in the dictionary are not objective truth. The definitions of words can change over time. Different dictionaries may define a word differently, if only slightly.

I am aware that there is a scientific definition of phylum, order, family, species, etc. this system is as objective as humans can manage, but such definitions can change over time. they are not absolute truth, on which you can base a irrefutable logical argument. They are creations of humans and DO NOT come with any absolute guarentee. You seem to use the word 'objective' in an absolute sense - this is illogical, since you are not a god.

One day, when cloning is perfected (and it seems it will be, at some point) the single muscle cell in my thigh can be placed in a petra dish and grown into a human person. Do you doubt technological progess will allow this one day? If so, on what grounds?

You might reply "Well, JGL53, this is not possible in today's world, ergo, it's not a consideration. It's mere science fiction at this point. Obviously, such a cell isn't a person or a human being, it is only POTENTIALLY so, in some future world where cloning is commonplace."

But, again, I ask you, do you doubt that one day cloning wil be perfected? If not, why not? If you agree it will, then the muscle cell in my thigh MUST be viewed (by you) as a human being, or you will stand guilty of being logically inconsistent. After all, A = A. You said so yourself. The cell can't be a POTENTIAL human being. It is either a human being - or it is not. A = A. not A = not A. A cannot equal not A. A being is a being.

If there can be such a thing as a POTENTIAL human being, then you have no argument against those who say a human blastocyte is not a human being.

If a single human muscle is not merely a potential human being, and it can be cloned into a human being, then is it a human being? Yes or no?

If yes, then each of our bodies contain not one, but billions of humans beings, all of whom have a right to life, and it would be immoral to kill (murder) any of them.

If no, then why not?

long winded fool

Potential human beings do not have legal rights. Human beings have rights. I do not deny that muscle cells could be potential human beings. I do not deny that sperm and egg cells could be potential human beings. I do deny that a zygote is a potential human being because it is already a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens. It is a human being under the accepted scientific definition. Fortunately, they usually don't let individuals change definitions on a whim and then legally act on this new definition. (Otherwise there would obviously be nothing that could be labelled as a crime.) When people are allowed to change accepted 'absolute' definitions, African humans can (by your logic) easily be defined as non persons and enslaved. The definition of human being is 'absolute' in order to avoid this behavior which I'm sure you'll agree is detrimental to society. No I'm not God and I don't know that the things we consider 'absolute' for argument's sake are actually absolute, but I know that without assuming certain absolutes, human knowledge becomes meaningless. If I don't assume that two plus two always equals four, I will never learn mathematics.

That said, if you still truly do not recognize logic as an authority, then I cannot communicate with you. You don't have to assume I or anyone else is absolutely right, but if you disregard logic simply because you don't like the conclusions, then you can never learn anything. If you're goal is to be irrational and close-minded, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. If you want to explore the issue and possibly change your preconcieved notions, or help me change mine, then lets get back to the basic logic of this argument and assume that logic remains our only method of discerning the truth here.

What is your definition of a human being and why should it be considered superior to the accepted scientific definition?
Why do any human beings have legal rights?
In what cases is it ok to kill (revoke the right to life of) a human being?
Should laws be passed with the good of society recognized ahead of the convenience of a minority, or vice versa?

long winded fool

Human beings should have the legal right to life because the arbitrary destruction of members of one's own species is demonstrably detrimental to the survival of said species in the animal kingdom. (This is why there are very few animal 'murders.' Groups of animals which often engage in this behavior are bred out of existence.) Since the goal of society is survival and not death, it is logical to pass laws which contribute to its survival and prevent its death. Allowing the killing of members of a society when this does not contribute to the survival of the society is illogical. Making an exception for one minority while punishing another for the same act is equally detrimental to the survival of the society and is therefore equally illogical.

A human corpse is a member of the human speices just like a fetus and just like a murderer. A human being has the right to life for as long as it is alive and not threatening to forcibly revoke the right of another. Since a human corpse is not alive and since a serial killer is threatening the life of other members of his or her society by his or her continued existence, both of these human beings have surrendered their right to life. Whether the surrender is voluntary (capital punishment for murder) or involuntary (complications during pregnancy) once the right to life is surrendered said human can legally be killed. Make sense? Once a human being is no longer alive, (and, if you want to get technical, even before is 'becomes' alive, if this is possible) it cannot logically have the right to life.

JGL53

Oh, yeah, I almost forgot one of my most important arguments: Exactly when and where did god give the authors of the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights' his/her/its imprimatur of moral authority? Those mofos can all take a airborne fornication at a rotating pasty, for all I care.

JGL53

A member in the sense of having a full complement of the DNA that defines the species. But 'member' is not a word that is used in law. I am still under the impression that the word 'person' is what is always used (we need a lawyer to comment on this). If not 'person', then 'human being'. I don't think you can logically demonstrate that what scientists mean by 'member' is necessarily the same as what is morally and legally and existentially meant by person and human being.

[/B][/QUOTE] ... The definition of human being is 'absolute' in order to avoid this behavior which I'm sure you'll agree is detrimental to society. No I'm not God and I don't know that the things we consider 'absolute' for argument's sake are actually absolute, but I know that without assuming certain absolutes, human knowledge becomes meaningless. [/B][/QUOTE]

Ah, so your 'absolutes' are 'assumed'? Then it is possible for other people to have other assumed absolutes that differ yours, and for a majority in a society to which you belong to create laws that violate YOUR individual assumptions, or other minority assumptions. Quote me a law that shows that zygotes are meant to be considered persons. If you can't, than all we are arguing is your assumed opinion.

[/B][/QUOTE] That said, if you still truly do not recognize logic as an authority, then I cannot communicate with you. [/B][/QUOTE]

I recognise the law as an authority. I define logic as a method, not an authority.

[/B][/QUOTE] .... If you're goal is to be irrational and close-minded, then there is no point in continuing this conversation. [/B][/QUOTE]

My goal, if any, is to try and understand why people like you think microscopic human cells should be viewed under the law as persons or human beings. So far, I have been thoroughly frustrated. I'm begining to believe I will NEVER reach my goal. Yu keep going round and round, spouting the same meaningless stuff.

[/B][/QUOTE] What is your definition of a human being and why should it be considered superior to the accepted scientific definition?[/B][/QUOTE]

My contention is that there is no accepted scientific definition of a 'human being' (see my answer above). In short, there's a scientific definition of the human species, not person or human being.


[/B][/QUOTE] Why do any human beings have legal rights?
In what cases is it ok to kill (revoke the right to life of) a human being?
Should laws be passed with the good of society recognized ahead of the convenience of a minority, or vice versa? [/B][/QUOTE]

Because we human beings by consensus say so.
Self-defense comes to mind.
The former, I should think. (Is that a trick question?)

JGL53

I'm sure Dominus Paradoxum will want to answer your post in full, but I'd like to comment on the above error on your part:

Others animals have their own problems. Fine Let's talk humans. There are over six billion human beings on earth. Our problem is not survival by not having enough reproduction. If anything, our existence is threatened by having too many people for the food presently produced and the distribution systems now available.

If we allowed arbitrary killing of humans beings, it would be detrimental to our way of life, morally and socially - anarchy and all that. But we don't. We have laws against murder.

We allow abortion - or rather millions of abortions occur worldwide each year, legal and illegal. This is NOT demonstratably detrimental to human society in the sense you state, i.e., putting us at risk of extinction (EVEN if we all were to agree that abortion is murder - put that utlmate question asside for a moment).

I've no doubt that if the abortion rate went up one hundred per cent worldwide this year over the previous record and stayed that high from now on, our species would STILL not be in any danger of extinction by lack of reproduction.

Ergo, your specific argument here is obviously false. It has been demonstrated by me to be WRONG. You have been shown to be incorrect, to have made a logical error, to have produced a false analogy.

Will you admit this? (I am not asking that you concede the entire argument. I am asking you to admit that THIS particular argument you made is in error.)

Dominus Paradoxum

Since JGL53 already refuted your first point, I'll just add that your responce seems to belie a rather shollow form of collectivism. And "survival of the species" is a pretty pathetic reason to grant individuals rights: Ethically, if a thing should be granted rights, it must be because of some characteristic intrinsic to the thing, and not merely as means to the further end of producing progeny. And I'd also like to add that, on your own principles, contraception should be just as heinous as abortion, because it is equally detrimental to the "survival of the species".

So much for "inaleinability". Tell me, just how does a serial killer threaten the community when they're locked safely inside their prison cell? And just how does a serial killer "voluntarily" surrender their right to life? At what time did they renounce it? Most serial killers, I hope you realize, are mentally deranged, and would profit more from medical treatment then being sent to the electric chair. And how does a corpse lose its right to life simply by dying? If you like logic, please consider the following syllogism:

1. All memers of the species homo sapiens sapiens, simply by virtue of said membership, have the inaleinable right to life.

2. A human corpse is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens

Ergo, a human corpse has the inaleinable right to life.

This arguement is formally valid, so you'll have to reject the the first or the second premise if you wish to evade it. If you reject the first, as I suspect you will, then what more is needed for the right to life? It cannot be life, for a serial killer has that. And why should a corpse be considered 'dead' if future technology might revive it? Death used to be defined as the stopping of the heart, but now that people can survive that, it has been changed to the ceasement of brain function. Mabe, if nanotechnology allows us to resurrect the criogenically frozen, death will be redefined again as the irreversible destruction of the brain. And who knows? If we're ever able to save "back up" copies of our minds on a computer, maybe the definition of death will be changed once more, or perhaps the word 'death' will vanish altogether. And since you're such a stickler for definitions, I would ask, do you think the essential nature of death has changed every time? And if not, why not?

long winded fool

I concede your point if you can explain one thing. Do you admit that if the murder rate went up 100% worldwide this year over the previous record and stayed that high from now on the species STILL would not be in any danger of extinction? This is as true a case as your point about abortion. I believe you have slightly misrepresented my analogy. You agree that murder is wrong but you point out that abortion is not likely to cause the extinction of the species... But then neither is murder. Murder and abortion are still logically analogous. You could argue that the danger of extinction is no reason to make murder illegal any more than it is a reason to outlaw abortion, but you still believe murder ought to be illegal. Perhaps if you ask yourself why you think murder ought to be illegal, you'll see the point of my analogy, false or not.

Murder is not necessarily detrimental to society solely because of a danger of imminent extinction resulting from too many people dying and not enough people being born and neither is abortion. They are both equally detrimental because they set a precedent that, in the very long run, could possibly result in extinction or at least the unnecessary deaths of countless human beings, an event most would consider a catastrophe. If murder were legal, many human beings would die very rapidly. Abortion proves this, since it is legal and many unborn fetuses die every year. Though the species on the whole would probably not go extinct if murder were legalized in this society, I don't think you can argue that this isn't still on some level a detrimental thing to the survival of the species, even if it's on an intellectual level. Dogmatism doesn't cause extinction, yet it is detrimental to our survival adaptation of reason and logic. If human beings have intrinsic rights as the law says they do, then legal murder would violate these rights and eventually cause major problems. Legal abortion would also violate these rights. What makes you think that legal abortion won't cause more problems than it solves? Murder solves many problems as well, yet it is illegal because it presents far more. If I can kill a child right now but not a few weeks later, why can't I logically argue for the right to extend the deadline? And where does it end and why should it end?

A keen observation. If the human species were endanger of imminent extinction, I'd agree that contraception would be an illogical system and therefore have no place in the laws of society. Since human beings are overpopulated, I think contraception might be a wise and effective (in an almost non-existent sense, to be completely honest) step in curbing overpopulation. I'm sure you recognize that abortion is also a means of curbing overpopulation. So is murder. The difference between murder of human beings and prevention of reproduction is clear in the laws of society, but if we are to engage in philosophical speculation, one might say that while encouraging an over-populated species capable of reason to destroy their young might prevent over-population, it sets a dangerous precedent that this behavior is logical and, should the species ever become under-populated, it will still expect this freedom, thus actually putting the species in danger of extinction. Unlikely I agree, but the unsure consequences have nothing to do with whether or not the behavior is rational.

Of course, arbitrary philosophical speculation aside, my 'absolute' argument, as JGL53 puts it, is that the laws of legal abortion and equal human rights are contradictory. While I enjoy speculating on why laws are in effect, as Dr. Rick points out, this is unnecessary for me or you to accept the axiom that the laws are indeed in effect.

1. All memers of the species homo sapiens sapiens, simply by virtue of said membership, have the inaleinable right to life.

2. A human corpse is a member of the species homo sapiens sapiens

Ergo, a human corpse has the inaleinable right to life.

Absolutely true. And if you take away this right you are denying the corpse its inalienable rights. Now how exactly do you deny a corpse the right to life? Can you kill a corpse? I see no logical dilemma here. If a corpse had life, it would be inalienably entitled to it. (And would then no longer be a corpse.) Since fetuses have life, they are entitled to it. Since corpses no longer are in possession of life, and since life cannot be given to a corpse, there is no possible way to revoke or grant this right.

I believe you are pointing out that not all human beings have the right to life at all times. I agree. Criminals on death row do not have the right to life. The burglar in my house pointing a gun at me does not have the right to life. In general, human beings who are threatening to end the life of other human beings surrender their own right to life. Do you now conclude that human rights are not equal and inalienable? If so, is it logical to throw out this basis for American freedom? Or should we examine those rare instances where, by infringing on the rights of others, a given human being surrenders his own right to life or freedom. Does it not make sense that those who forcibly deny others their inalienable rights ought to be forcibly removed from the society which grants these rights? Does it not make sense to look at this system when judging a given human being? Is so-and-so trying to kill me? Then I can kill him. Is so-and-so severely inconveniencing me? Then I cannot kill him.

And the Born Alive Infants Protection Act (maybe not particularly relevant to the discussion of abortion,) also defines human beings as homo sapiens and specifically states any infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development, Of course, this law specifies the necessary expulsion or extraction from the mother, reflecting the admittedly irrefutable legality of abortion. The point is: No nebulous criteria of personhood specifically required in either case. Simple membership in the species of human being (and added later amid requests to legalize abortion: existing outside of another human being, which begs the question and makes the idea of equal human rights suddenly arbitrary) is all a life form legally needs.

While the UDHR states ALL MEMBERS of the human family have inherent and equal rights in order to protect freedom, justice, and peace, the laws legalizing abortion specifically exclude SOME MEMBERS. Not rational.