yguy

Since when did lexicographers become the arbiters of what constitutes humanity? As for the law, one could logically infer from your reasoning that if we changed the law next week so as to grant embryos humanity, we could legally take it away again 6 months later. If we can thus grant the status of human and take it away with the stroke of a pen, why can't we declare blacks, Jews, homosexuals, long-haired maggot-infested dope-smoking good-time rock'n'roller FM types, telemarketers and board admins non-human while we're at it?

The Other Michael

Hello yguy,

Lexicographers play an important part in social interactions - we have to have some mutually accepted defnitions to work with otherwise we have a situation where people are talking about different things instead of the intended topic.

IIRC from my speech competition years ago, one of the very first things you do in a debate is define your terms. Until that has been done, you can't be assured that everyone is debating the same topic.

BTW, what makes you think that board admins are human?


cheers,
Michael

long winded fool

I think this is why the United Nations uses "human being" instead of "person" when applying inalienable rights. "Personhood" is a nebulous and subjective concept that has in the past been used to exclude some human beings from legal rights. It could be argued that not all human beings are persons. If inalienable rights apply to all human beings regardless of personhood, then there is no room for legal discrimination against minorities. Instead of being legally able to pick and choose who falls under the category of "person," the law would grant "all members of the human family" certain rights from the get go. This is a wise precaution without which there is no legal guarantee that certain human beings will not be unfairly discriminated against in the future. (Though, as is obvious by Roe vs. Wade, this can happen even with the law guaranteeing equal human rights in effect. A very dangerous precedent to set in any society, civilized or not.)

yguy

I'm not sure I can give a definition we can all accept.

However, let us start with what we know: a newborn infant is human. If any would suggest that this same conglomeration of cells was not human 5 minutes before birth, I would ask on what basis. If we can agree that the fetus just prior to birth is human, it devolves upon the abortion proponents to prove that there is some point after conception at which the fetus becomes human, and before which it may justly be destroyed. Otherwise, we are giving what is possibly a human being less legal consideration than we do accused murderers, to whom we think it right to grant the presumption of innocence.

Now intrinsic to the idea of humanity, it seems, is the idea of consciousness or sentience. I refer abortion advocates to this piece for insight in that area:

http://www.birthpsychology.com/lifebefore/earlymem.html

"The documentation of learning and memory months before birth is surprising. Some of this has been made possible by direct ultrasound observations of fetal behavior. Twins can be seen developing certain gestures and habits at twenty weeks gestational age which persist into their postnatal years. In one case, a brother and sister were seen playing cheek-to-cheek on either side of the dividing membrane. At one year of age, their favorite game was to take positions on opposite sides of a curtain, and begin to laugh and giggle as they touched each other and played through the curtain. Parents interested in prenatal communication have taught their prenates the "Kick Game." When babies kick, the parents touch the abdomen and say, "Kick, baby, kick!" When the baby kicks, they move to a different location and repeat the invitation. Babies soon oblige by kicking anywhere on cue."



Show me where I said they were.

Dr Rick

They aren't, afaik.

lwf's arguement hinges in part upon the assumption that they are; my post was a demonstration of how such reasoning fails when it comes to legal and moral arguments.

One cannot logically infer anything until one first understands the argument.

Yeah, that's part of why an argument based upon presumed definitions is not a logical one.

Rick

yguy

Not quite true. One SHOULDN'T, but one can - and that, rest assured, is what abortion proponents are doing.

long winded fool

I don't think that the definition of human being is in question. You can argue sentience, consciousness, personhood until your blue in the face, but there is a reason the UN didn't specify any of these things. There is a reason they are human rights. "Human" is not an arbitrary term. Either an animal is a human or it is not. Certain humans may not be persons, but this has nothing to do with their inalienable right to life granted them by the UDHR. Certain humans are not caucasian either. Certain humans are not conscious and certain humans are not scuba divers. All of these completely true observations are irrelevant. A living human being is always an example of the species homo sapiens sapiens.

The question is, what human beings have the right to life and why? Dead human beings obviously do not have the legal right to life, though they did before they died. Human beings who are threatening to forcibly end the life of another human being may not have the legal right to life, though this is dependent upon the situation. Likewise with serial killers who are deemed unrehabilitatable. The question is, what motives make killing legal? Protection of one's life or another's seems like a motive that makes killing a human being ok according to law. Putting a human being who is near death and in great pain out of his or her misery might be another example. It is never okay to kill an innocent human being for the convenience of oneself or another... unless of course the human being is a non-vocal minority? This is not equal human rights. Maybe human rights are not equal and maybe some humans can be destroyed for the convenience of the majority, but if this is the case then the law ought not to declare equal and inalienable human rights when this is obviously not the case.

Claiming a fetus of the species homo sapiens sapiens is not a human being is false by definition. Let me sum up the argument again: If "any member of the family Hominidae of the group homo" is a human being, as is the accepted scientific definition of the term, then it is true that any creature you encounter which is of the species homo sapiens sapiens is a human being. If a fetus is a creature of the species homo sapiens sapiens, then aborting said fetus is the killing of a human being. If all innocent human beings have the inalienable right to life, then abortion, excluding self-defense, denies a human minority an inalienable right granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (The most important inalienable right, I should think.) This in turn renders the entire document powerless and false from the get go. Not all human beings are entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness in this country, according to the law which legalizes abortion. Minorities are apparently understood to be precluded unless otherwise stated. This, to me, violates everything the UDHR was drafted to represent. "Because I'm a thinking human being, I make the rules, and this is how I want it to be," is not a rational reason for making such a law. We've learned that our power and ability to make rules doesn't mean those rules are going to be rational and beneficial. The cons of legal slavery outweighed the pros in the long run. We can figure this out simply by using logic and examining the consequences of our actions from an objective standpoint. Not an easy thing to do, I admit, but if we care at all about our society, we must do it.

So logic needs to be applied, and according to my argument, legal abortion is not logical and is therefore detrimental to society in the long run.

dk

dk: You’re jumping the gun a little on this. First, this thread comes with considerable context, so while alone my comment may appear disconnected, in the larger flow lwf and I have presented its not.
dk: I would gladly argue Malthus’ economics of overpopulation though its off topic. The facts are so overwhelmingly stacked against Malthusian Economics there’s no debate, Malthus was wrong in 1800, wrong in 1900, and wrong in 2000AD. In fact I would go on to assert that Darwin applied Malthus’ economics to biology, and his cousin Galton to biometrics, and Spenser to Sociology. This calls into question virtually every psychological and sociological theory except utilitarianism, common sense, and pragmatism because they “in themselves” to a limited degree are self evident, though from a materialistic perspective everything self evident becomes a non sequitur a teleological, circular or truistic sense. I’ll grant the earth does have a finite carrying capacity, but remains unknowable short of a time travel machine.

The historian Toynbee measured all sociological and economic arguments with 3 simple verifiable propositions.

1. Civilization requires considerable overhead to sustain and perpetuate itself and progress.
2. Civilizations grow and prosper by resolving the problems they encounter
3. Civilizations are ruined when they encounter an insoluble problem, doomed to pour more and more of their lives blood in vein down the black hole without recompense.

Some say abortion solves a bunch of problems, like sexual inequality, oppression of women, numerous unwanted babies/children/people, poverty, illiteracy,, etc... But the fact is BC and abortion has been available in the US for over 40 years. Over which time the economic gap between rich and poor has become a chasm, at least that’s what Jimmy Carter said when he recieved his Noble Prize. We still haven’t come close to sexual equality, ask the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transvestite alliances, not to mention the NOW, WOW, DOG, COW, PIG and PETA crowds. . The # of unwanted babies and children swallowed up “in the system” have become so numerous social services can’t even keep track of the benefactors (foster homes) much less the children. The truth is you’re in a state of denial with your head buried in non-sequiturs, non causa, pro causa because it makes you comfortable with your opinions.

dk

An excellent point, likewise the right to life provides a an essential plank in the platform of human dignity, and without such a platform to elevate our mutual standing we reduce to bunch of degenerates, each justified to act upon their own compulsions and rationalizations without regard for the welfare of others.

yguy

Just a slight correction: inalienable rights cannot be granted, by definition - otherwise the grantor could take those rights away.

This is like saying the cons of the Spanish Inquisition outweighed the pros in the long run.