Vorhis the Wolf

And your point is?? Nature is engineered to weed out the stupid. If people forget to bring a map,compas and signaling device when they go hikeing in an unfamiliar area then they should expect to get lost. If they cant survive for a few days without bringing a whole camping store with them, then maybe they should just stick to staying in the camp ground.

Please dont assume that just because YOU lack the skills of an outdoorsman that everyone does. I hate to break it to you , but the native americans did just fine for hundreds of years without haveing any of your alleged "essential equiptment". When you bring a hundred pounds of junk with you it isnt camping any more. It is just bringing a long a portable hotel room.

The Other Michael

Hi folks,

Outdoor survival skills seem to be a wee bit off the original topic.

But it might make for an interesting MD topic if you want to take that part of the discussion over there.

cheers,
Michael
MF&P Moderator, First Class

Vorhis the Wolf

your point is taken. Sorry about the hijack.

dk

Vorhis the Wolf: And your point is?? Nature is engineered to weed out the stupid. If people forget to bring a map,compas and signaling device when they go hikeing in an unfamiliar area then they should expect to get lost. If they cant survive for a few days without bringing a whole camping store with them, then maybe they should just stick to staying in the camp ground.
dk: My point is, a fetus is commensal upon his mother, like everyone is commensal upon other people. Commensalism therefore not only rationalizes abortion, but easily denies 10% of the population a right to life.
o
Vorhis the Wolf: Please dont assume that just because YOU lack the skills of an outdoorsman that everyone does. I hate to break it to you , but the native americans did just fine for hundreds of years without haveing any of your alleged "essential equiptment". When you bring a hundred pounds of junk with you it isnt camping any more. It is just bringing a long a portable hotel room.
dk: 15th Century people in America depended upon one another for survival, all human beings depend upon others, so as a criterion commensal literally negates the Right to Life completely. In fact, the right to an abortion pregnant women enjoy makes the concept of Inalienable right a logical absurdity.

Jack the Bodiless

Personally, I believe the abortion argument should be terminated when it becomes evident that the "pro-lifer" will never accept the commonly-held convention that personhood resides in the brain.

dk

Inalienable rights fundamentally contain in the substance of being “temporal existence”, because they are intractable. As such human rights are logically ordered by necessity (see Locke) with life, liberty, property etc... not subject to 1) tyranny of the majority 2) judicial fiat, or 3) executive privilege. Therefore if a human beings exist, they contain a full complement of inalienable rights for the duration of life. A fetus being wholly human in substance and potential contains all the rationally discernable elements essential to biological life. A fetus contains the capacity to heal, grow, reproduce, mature and die, ordered to the human life cycle in union with all other living organisms. So even if a fetus lacks the ability to think from one moment to the next they are no more and no less human than an infant, child, teenager or adult human being. It follows that, if government can extract from a fetus the right to life, then all “human rights” become subjective, therefore extractable whenever “the ends are rationalized to justify the means”.

The judicial branch of government was constituted to protect people from the tyranny of the majority and executive privilege in a triad government of checks and balances. Truth stranger than fiction, it was the judiciary that by fiat denied blacks access to the courts in....

1. Dred Scott they ordered a White men’s property rights superseded black men’s liberty rights,
2. Ferguson v. Plessy they subjected a black man’s liberty to the natural supremacy of white folk, and
3. Roe v. Wade ruled a mother’s liberty superseded her babies right to life.

To place inalienable rights under the footstool of judicial interpretation fundamentally undermines the union of any government conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

The slippery slope argument is a red hearing to divert attention from the core issue, inalienable rights. The “Right of Abortion” blames the fetus for being conceived to justify the wanton destruction of a human life. .

Jack the Bodiless

Begging the question. It has not been established that the fetus qualifies as a human being, rather than a nonsentient human organ (or collection of organs). This discussion has now reached page 8, largely because this issue has not been resolved.
I disagree. Don't expect me to simply roll over and concede this point. You are proceeding as if this was not in dispute.
Non sequitur. It does not follow that, just because blacks were once judged inferior to whites and aren't any more, therefore fetuses should now be considered persons. Toenail clippings don't currently enjoy human rights: as blacks now do, therefore toenail clippings should also?
No, it does not. Never, ever, have I come across any case where the fetus is "blamed" for being conceived.

dk

Originally posted by dk:
Inalienable rights fundamentally contain in the substance of being "temporal existence", because they are intractable. As such human rights are logically ordered by necessity (see Locke) with life, liberty, property etc... not subject to 1) tyranny of the majority 2) judicial fiat, or 3) executive privilege. Therefore if a human beings exist...
Jack the Bodiless:
Begging the question. It has not been established that the fetus qualifies as a human being, rather than a nonsentient human organ (or collection of organs). This discussion has now reached page 8, largely because this issue has not been resolved.
dk: On February 25, 2003 05:43 PM the criterion was provided. The Dictionary of Biology, published by Oxford University Press defines an organism: “An individual living system, such as an animal, plant, or microorganism, that is capable of reproduction, growth, and maintenance.” A zygote contains all the rationally defined criterion and is therefore an organism. What kind of organism is a human zygote? Well a human. I don’t know what else to tell you Jack, but according to the Declaration of Independence the US was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that everyone is created equal. It’s a logical necessity that inalienable rights be inextricable from the moment of temporal existence, else human rights are subjective (not inalienable). It is logically impossible to at the same time, in the same sense, maintain “all people are created equal” and grant to one individual the liberty to kill another.
o
Originally posted by dk:
A fetus being wholly human in substance and potential contains all the rationally discernable elements essential to biological life. A fetus contains the capacity to heal, grow, reproduce, mature and die, ordered to the human life cycle in union with all other living organisms. So even if a fetus lacks the ability to think from one moment to the next they are no more and no less human than an infant, child, teenager or adult human being.
Jack the Bodiless:
I disagree. Don't expect me to simply roll over and concede this point. You are proceeding as if this was not in dispute.
dk: Well said, but I don’t see a lot of substance here Jack, in fact I don’t see any at all.
o
Originally posted by dk:
Truth stranger than fiction, it was the judiciary that by fiat denied blacks access to the courts in....
1. Dred Scott they ordered a White men’s property rights superseded black men’s liberty rights,
2. Ferguson v. Plessy they subjected a black man’s liberty to the natural supremacy of white folk, and
3. Roe v. Wade ruled a mother’s liberty superseded her babies right to life.
Jack the Bodiless:
Non sequitur. It does not follow that, just because blacks were once judged inferior to whites and aren't any more, therefore fetuses should now be considered persons. Toenail clippings don't currently enjoy human rights: as blacks now do, therefore toenail clippings should also?
dk: I wasn’t trying to make a logical argument here. I just thought it was kind of ironic that the Supreme Court constituted to hold the democratic branches of government in check, almost immediately anointed itself with the power of judicial review, then proceeded to rededicate a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal” , to a nation that rationalizes slavery, sweat shops, child labor, institutional racism, Jim Crow Laws, and abortion on demand. Did you know in 1905 the US Supreme Court also declared a New York law limiting work hours unconstitutional as a violation of “right to free contract” and “a conspiracy against free trade”, and similarly Congressional child labor laws were declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1918 and 1922. I don’t want to beat a dead horse but in my opinion we have a distinct historical pattern of judicial abuse here.
o
dk:
The slippery slope argument is a red hearing to divert attention from the core issue, inalienable rights. The "Right of Abortion" blames the fetus for being conceived to justify the wanton destruction of a human life...
Jack the Bodiless:
No, it does not. Never, ever, have I come across any case where the fetus is "blamed" for being conceived.
dk: Already in this thread fetuses have been dehumanized and degraded as brainless, potential humans, commensal and parasites. Dehumanization gives deniability to the perpetrator by blaming the victim. For example, “I’m not a rapist, the slut was begging for it.” Dehumanization removes some individual or group from our personal moral universe, so that we can blame them for our own actions, compliance or inaction. The psychological payoff for dehumanizing groups is plausible deniability. Essentially what Pro-choice factions do is dehumanize the fetus removing it from the moral universe in which they live, then justify the abortion by blaming the fetus for the mother’s plight. After the dirty deed is done everyone gets to sooth their conscience with plausible deniability.

Dr Rick

On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed into law the official criterion for human being after HR 2125 was passed by Congress. It, and neither dk nor the dictionary define what law and policy makers mean by the term human being

"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', 'human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development...Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section."

First of all, the Declaration is not law; the Constitution, which specifies birth, but not conception, is.

Second of all, the Declaration specifies that all men, not fetuses or everyone are created equal.

It’s no more a logical necessity then the proposition "that inalienable rights be inextricable from the moment of birth, else human rights are subjective (not inalienable)" is.

Your reasoning is flawed.

You employ the fallacy of equivocation in which you impose definitions that were not intended by those that wrote the laws.

You also fail to recognize that rights are subjective. They are a human construct, not a natural principle or rule of physics. Rights are what we say they are; they arise from our values, not from the exercise of logic. Granting rights ot fetuses is no more and no less logical than granting abortion rights to women.


It is your claim that fetuses are people and that they are equal to all other persons. Those of us that don't think that fetuses are equal to all other persons are logically consistent in supporting abortion rights.

Your equivocation is inconsistent, however; you insist on interpreting the term human beings literally and in a manner not consistent with how it was originally meant, but interpret men in a less-strict, non-literal way to include all "everyone."

Fetuses are human; they are unborn humans who do not have the same rights as born humans.

You haven't.

And you humanize it and provide a different subjective set of morals. So?

Rick

dk

Originally posted by dk:
On February 25, 2003 05:43 PM the criterion was provided. The Dictionary of Biology, published by Oxford University Press defines an organism: “An individual living system, such as an animal, plant, or microorganism, that is capable of reproduction, growth, and maintenance.”
Dr Rick:
On August 5, 2002, President Bush signed into law the official criterion for human being after HR 2125 was passed by Congress. It, and neither dk nor the dictionary define what law and policy makers mean by the term human being
dk:
President Bush and Congress are democratically elected branches in a triad government where the Judiciary has the constitutional duty to protect inalienable rights from a tyranny of the majority. Justice O’Connor wrote for the majority decision, “this Court's post-Roe decisions accord with Roe's view that a State's interest in the protection of life falls short of justifying any plenary override of individual liberty claims.” The Supreme Court admits not being interested in the protection of life, or in other words the Supreme Court has elected to demote the inalienable right to life to a standard of subjective justification. As Locke so persuasively argued in the cause of Natural Rights, rights are ordered by logical necessity. For example:

1. If the usurper’s property rights supersede the victim’s liberty, then the usurper becomes entitled to the victims liberty by purchasing the victim as property.
2. If the usurper’s right to liberty supersedes the victim’s right to life, then the usurper by murdering the victim becomes entitled to all the victims liberty.

So it is by logical necessity that the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property are ordered. So abortion reorders human rights making them subjective, and subject to the tyranny of the majority, or the usurpations of the powerful.
o
Dr Rick:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words `person', 'human being', `child', and `individual', shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development...Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being `born alive' as defined in this section."
dk:
Sorry, but corporations are juridical persons, created by an Act of Law. A corporation by an “Act of Congress” can be granted the liberty to destroy human life, purchase a person’s liberty or seize personal property, once an inalienable rights become subjective(alienable). That’s exactly how Rockefeller, Carnegie, Fisk, Morgan etc... denied labor the right to associate, organize and negotiate for a safe working environment, sonority rights, overtime and. a living wage; ditto for child labor.
o
Originally posted by dk:
I don’t know what else to tell you Jack, but according to the Declaration of Independence the US was conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that everyone is created equal.
Dr Rick:
First of all, the Declaration is not law; the Constitution, which specifies birth, but not conception, is.
Second of all, the Declaration specifies that all men, not fetuses or everyone are created equal.
dk:
Sorry, but as Lincoln said at Gettysburg, “Four score and seven years ago (1776) our forefathers brought forth on this Continent a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal”. When Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation into law he granted inalienable right of life and liberty to women and their progeny, contrary to what radical feminists and racial supremacists claim. The proclamation simply says, "That on the 1st day of January, A.D. 1863, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.” If all men are created equal the inalienable rights of life, liberty and property extend to the unborn. The founding propositions upon which the US was conceived and dedicated in 1776 remain the basis of the Union of States. This is the stuff that people live, die and kill for, life and death aren’t subjective judgments governments make but the final reality that defines humanity. The wounds inflicted by government and institutions protected by government enrage people precisely because they violate the founding principles that make a Union of States possible. This is why issues respecting slavery, forced labor, institutional racism, and sex crimes are political dynamite. This is why the abortion issue, 30 years after Roe, still fractionalizes political parties, national elections, communities and families. In Roe v. Wade Justice Blackmun explained, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. (snip) [410 U.S. 113, 160]” Blackmun was wrong, what he meant was the Supreme Court can’t legalize abortion and define when life begins. Its pretty obvious with cloning, artificial wombs on the horizon that human life begin at conception. The advances made in information systems, reproductive technologies and DNA has reopened the wounds respecting inalienable human right of life, liberty and property. Corporations as juridical persons are positioned to entitle themselves with the rights to patent, copyright, own and mass produce human beings for parts, sale, and lease, all rationalized by “the ends justifies the means”. The handwriting is on the wall.
o
Dr Rick: It’s no more a logical necessity then the proposition "that inalienable rights be inextricable from the moment of birth, else human rights are subjective (not inalienable)" is.
Your reasoning is flawed.
You employ the fallacy of equivocation in which you impose definitions that were not intended by those that wrote the laws.
dk: Unlike you I’m not a mind reader, and have no idea what the corporations, lobbyists and vested interests groups intend when they write the laws legislators enact. I am skeptical that our elected legislators know what the authors intend, and suspect nobody knows what the courts intend when they interpret the law. Your objection is baseless, and unacceptable.
o
Dr Rick:
You also fail to recognize that rights are subjective. They are a human construct, not a natural principle or rule of physics. Rights are what we say they are; they arise from our values, not from the exercise of logic. Granting rights to fetuses is no more and no less logical than granting abortion rights to women.
dk: Dr Rick, we just came into agreement. People have forfeit inalienable right to life, liberty and property to the judges that sit on the Federal Courts. Hey, what did you think about the Supreme Court stopping the recount in Florida to appoint Bush President? What do you think the Founding Fathers intended when they added the Tenth Amendment “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”? Never mind, don’t worry your pretty little head, if you ever need to know what a law means then hire a good attorney because you’ve already been screwed or want to screw somebody else.
o
dk: It is logically impossible to at the same time, in the same sense, maintain “all people are created equal” and grant to one individual the liberty to kill another.
Dr Rick:
It is your claim that fetuses are people and that they are equal to all other persons. Those of us that don't think that fetuses are equal to all other persons are logically consistent in supporting abortion rights.
dk: Parse the semantics from now till doomsday, but babies aren’t created at birth.
o
Dr Rick: Your equivocation is inconsistent, however; you insist on interpreting the term human beings literally and in a manner not consistent with how it was originally meant, but interpret men in a less-strict, non-literal way to include all "everyone."
dk: Again, I’m not a mind reader, Objection unacceptable.
o
Dr Rick: Fetuses are human; they are unborn humans who do not have the same rights as born humans.
dk: We’ve already agreed that inalienable right and abortion can’t exist, so whatever rights assigned from time to time to the born or unborn is subjective. A sad requiem for a nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
o
Dr Rick: And you humanize it and provide a different subjective set of morals. So?
dk: unacceptable, don’t quote me out of context. So my point stands, abortion blames the fetus for being conceived.