long winded fool

I've lost count of how many times you've resorted to this kind of argument Dr. Rick. I assume you realize that the definition of human being you used is based on Roe vs. Wade? Don't you see what you are doing? Again, you've used the legality of abortion to prove that it is logical. This is identical to proving that African slaves are not persons in 1780 by referencing their explicit exclusion by law. For the millionth time, I agree that abortion is perfectly legal! I am not going to be throwing any abortionists in jail anytime soon. With that out of the way, can we please get back to the issue at hand?

As for "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights" proving fetuses are not guaranteed rights by the UDHR, I reference my earlier refutation. Nothing in this sentence specifically excludes fetuses. Nothing in this sentence specifically includes fetuses. How can you use this to prove anything?? All you can logically say is that a portion of the UDHR, when taken out of context with the whole, does not specifically include (nor exclude) fetuses in inalienable human rights. When taken into context, (with the very preamble of the document no less,) fetuses are specifically included and therefore guaranteed equal and inalienable rights by the UDHR.

I will never argue that a provably legal thing is illegal. Please don't use this straw man in an attempt to discredit me any more. I argue that abortion should be illegal, and you argue that it's legal. You are essentially agreeing with my premise and somehow interpreting that to mean that you've refuted my conclusion. This is a waste of both of our time.

LostGirl

lwfool, once again I sigh, and wonder if anyone will ever reach you.

To begin with, I quote you: Um, honey? Take a good long look in the mirror and ask yourself when the last time you did anything other cling desperately to your self-delusions. When was the last time you were ever convinced of anything new? When was the last time you took new evidence and had it fundamentally change your views on anything instead of shoehorning it into your existing theories? I don't want to sound condescending, only gently concerned, because I am. I've never seen you alter your opinion once on these boards, and I think I've read mostly everything you've posted.
In addition, when purely contradictory truths to your assertions are pointed out to you, you seem to either ignore them, explain why under your definitions of both the contradictory truth and your assertion, there is no contradiction at all, or explain that it's our fault we see this as a discrepancy at all and not a confirmation.
It's just that if I saw any flexibility on your part at all it would go a long way towards me taking anything you say without a whole heap of salt.


So, I would like to know: you have stated over, and over, that abortion laws are inconsistent with stated definitions of "human" and "alive" in US law, the UDHR, and other locations. Dr. Rick and others have stated over, and over, that definitions of "human" are explicitly defined so as not to include homo sapiens who have not yet been born.

The next thing I knew, you were defining "birth" as not pertaining to the process of a fetus exiting the mother's body and support system. Or were you?

Over and over in your arguments, you have harped on the Absoluteness of the UDHD (which is a very admirable document, but it's not the Bible, nor should it be treated as such by anyone. Of course, neither should the Bible be treated as the Bible, but that's another thread). But when you disagree with clear guidlines for the applicability of the Human Rights outlined in the declaration, its absoluteness is no longer appealed to.

I'm not arguing with you, lwfool, because you're not someone who can be argued with. You don't enter the argument allowing for the possibility that you'll be convinced, IMO based on what I've read of you. Analogies of brick walls and people singing "LALALALALALALA" come to mind. I apologize if I'm wrong, and I'm not trying to be inflammatory, but I'd like to not have to disregard everything you write from now on.

dk

Lostgirl,
I think you’ve jumped the gun a bit on your judgment of lwf, and I would guess your remarks apply equally to me, so I’ll speak for myself. I agree, the real world comes in many shades of gray where absolutes appear to detract from the context. So for the sake of argument lets suppose that context can in and of itself sometimes serve as justification for abortion. I’m a practical person so the argument has a certain appeal to me. I would ask you to state and defend in practical terms the context (grounds) upon which abortion becomes justifiable?

Dr Rick

Once again, you don't know what your're talking about, lwf. I've lost count of how many times you've resorted to this kind of argument

"THE "BORN-ALIVE INFANTS PROTECTION ACT" which I quoted verbatim is a federal statute, not a Supreme court decision. It was passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. It's the legal definition of human being.

Of course I do: I'm crushing your illogical argument with facts and reason

Falling back on fallacies such as the false analogies you have repeatedly used won't make your argument any better...

...and neither will returning to non sequiturs; your false assumptions about the legal definition of "human being" are at issue. I certainly don't care what you think of the legality of abortion, and that's not what we're arguing.

You claim that fetuses are protected by law because they are legally defined as 'human beings," but you are obviously wrong. You claim that your argument is "logical' when it is blantantly irrational. You have asked me to explain your error to help you understand why you are wrong, and I am responding to your request. You're welcome.

It gets more pathetic each time you repeat it:

Fetuses aren't born

All you can logically say is that the entire UDHR does not apply to fetuses When taken into context, (including the very preamble of the document no less,) fetuses have no guarantee of equal and inalienable rights by the UDHR.

Starting when?

Rick

dk

I have to take issue with both statements above.
In Roe v Wade Justice Blackmun wrote for the majority,
“Texas urges that, apart from the Fourteenth Amendment, life begins at conception and is present throughout pregnancy, and that, therefore, the State has a compelling interest in protecting that life from and after conception. We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer. [410 U.S. 113, 160]:

In Casey v. PP Justice O’Connor writing the decision affirmed Roe stating, “The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U.S., at 156 . After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, [b]the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally[/b]."

Rick, since the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act specifically addresses post-natal infants, we can be assured a baby once born alive is in fact a persons, individuals, child, and human being. lwf, Rick could not possibly have defined a human beings with Roe v. Wade because they didn’t say. Apparently the Supreme Court and Congress don’t know if a fetus is alive or human, and I would guess don’t want to know, meaning ignorance is bliss.

yguy

I haven't followed the debate between LWF and Rick that closely, but LWF is correct. There is nothing in that sentence defining human beings exclusively as having been born. To say that we are born with certain rights in no way implies that we lack those rights before we are born.

Dr Rick

To say that we are born with certain rights in no way implies that fetuses have those rights before they are born, nor does it "logically" follow that they must, as lwf has so unsuccessfully tried to argue.

yguy

Correct. That sentence by itself doesn't appear to adress the issue one way or the other.

Dr Rick

Yeah, that might even be the reason that I've posted more than just that sentence by itself on this 12-page thread, huh? :banghead:

Rick

long winded fool

Ah, the root of the problem! I retract any statement I have made that fetuses are protected by the collective laws of this country. They are not. Fetuses are not guaranteed the right to life by the laws of this country when they are all taken into context. They are specifically and inarguably excluded, courtesy of Roe vs. Wade.

My argument is solely that this is not a logical notion. Though universal inalienable human rights cannot logically coexist with legal abortion, I admit that they absolutely do. By the laws of this country, human rights are equal and abortion is legal.

And, while I appreciate your concern LostGirl, I assure you it is not necessary. I don't view argument as a competition. When I disagree with someone, I presume that I am wrong and ask them to help me see the truth. In the words of Honest Abe, "I shall adopt new views as fast as they appear to be true views." As long as there are questions in my head, I will not have faith in the truth of any proposition. Answer my questions and we'll get to the bottom of whatever truth we are examining. Admonish me to believe what you say so that you can trust me and we won't get anywhere. I have no problem with critical self-analysis and I promise that I always speak only what I honestly believe to be the truth.