Dr Rick

It takes a really unique and mysterious way of thinking to somehow relate abortion rights to PETA and cross-dressing.

dk

Hey, watch it, the PETA folks know the value of a fertilized egg, and if its an endangered bird, you better not even think about scrambling one of them babies for breakfast.

long winded fool

But inalienable rights are granted, or at least declared. If the law decrees "inalienable rights" the law can take them away. Rights aren't granted by a single human authority, they are accepted as law collectively by the members of a society. If this society as a whole decided to take away inalienable human rights, it could do so quite easily. (We have in fact done this very thing in legalizing abortion.) The only reason they are "inalienable" is because we the people want them to be inalienable so we never have to suffer not having them. Except, apparently, when it is excessively inconvenient for us. Then we the majority still get the rights, (because they are inalienable, of course,) but we can revoke them from those minorities who don't in our opinion deserve them. No logic behind this rationale of course, but that is how laws work. They are only as rational as the society who intitutes them and they can be abandoned at any time. If one law contradicts another, one of them must be abandoned in order for the laws to logically follow. Either all members of the human family are entitled to the inalienable right to life, (Universal Declaration of Human Rights,) or not all members of the human family are entitled to the inalienable right to life, (Roe vs. Wade.) Both cannot be the case.

Very true. They did.

yguy

OK, we're on the same page.

fatherphil

i always thought there could only be two choices for folks who have the courage of their convictions. and as the law of this land stands, i threw in with the infanticide bookend of this poll.

JGL53

I've noticed that the 'long winded fool' has by far the most posts on this subject. I wonder if he has convinced anyone yet that abortion is murder? Anyone? Just wondering.

If and when he wins over all of us on this thread to his special way of thinking, there's a real challenge waiting for him down south, to wit:

Mexico had a huge poor population that is almost all Catholic.
As we all know, the R.C.C. is extremely anti-abortion.
Additionally, abortion is illegal there.
Nevertheless, even though Mexico's population is much less than the U.S., Mexico has many more abortions each year than we do.

So, perhaps long winded fool could make himself useful, if he really believes abortion is murder, and make a sojourn down south and browbeat those murdering Mexican peasant women into carrying to term. I mean, if there's one thing that could perk up a dirt poor woman with eight screaming stairstep children, it would be ANOTHER kid. Yeah, that's the ticket.

Dr Rick

I wonder if anyone else is now convinced that chimpanzees are "logically" granted human rights by the United Nations...

Rick

long winded fool

That is about the most obvious straw man I've ever seen! Chimpanzees are not granted human rights by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights because chimpanzees are not human beings. What part of this is confusing??

Dr Rick

It's really quite simple.

Since you insist that the term "human being" as used by the United Nations is defined by the dictionary, and not by it's own articles, nor by any law like the one the US has that specifically excludes fetuses, and since one of the dictionary definitions of human being is "n : any living or extinct member of the family Hominidae," then by your argument, chimpanzees, which are a members of this family, must "logically" have human rights.

"What part of this is confusing??"

Rick

long winded fool

So you propose that killing certain minority humans is a solution to human overpopulation? It is true that killing certain human beings reduces human population, but is this a wise way for a society to keep their poor from reproducing? If you don't believe that abortion kills certain minority humans then you are wrong, and I reference my stated argument as logical proof. If you cannot be convinced by logic alone, then there is no point in using logic to try to convince you of anything. If you view logical arguments as brow-beating, then how are you any different than any zealot vomiting some subjective and unreasonable dogma that you cling to despite ample evidence to the contrary and ignoring any critical analysis of the logic of your beliefs?

I can't convince you or anyone else of anything. It is all your choice. You can choose to be honest with yourself despite what your peers might say and possibly take a blow to your ego, or you can cling desperately to self-delusion and retain the acceptance of your similarly dishonest peers. I'm sorry if the blatant irrationality of legal abortion offends some pro-choicers, but it remains a contradictory and socially detrimental law that should not be on the books in a reasoning society.