dk

The real point is that past Homo sapiens what's buried in the wood pile is speculative at best.

Dr Rick

...it's not clear why you continue to post things that aren't true when they are so easily refuted; this habit of yours certainly doesn't make you any more credible. You have had your fallacies pointed-out explicitly and repeatedly:

From just one post on page 6 of this thread:

"That is the fallacy of presumption. The law must define to whom those rights belong...This is another logical fallacy known as a strawman. Pro-choice advocates do not argue that fetuses have rights equal to other people...This is the fallacy of many questions in which one reduces a complex issue to an oversimplified one...A logical proof is based upon "premises," and since pro-lifers and pro-choicers have differing sets of premises (values), neither can "logically" prove their position to the other...your reasoning is twisted by too may fallacies; the one above is the fallacy of false analogy.

Rick

long winded fool

Fallacy of presumption: If the law defines equal inalienable rights as things belonging to all human beings, and I use this as my premise, what is the problem? If another law declares that abortion is legal, then my conclusion of contradictory laws still stands, so long as abortion is killing a human being, which I have shown it is. Since my conclusion is not that abortion is illegal, this is not the fallacy of presumption. I accept your premise that abortion is illegal. Until you manage to derive a logical conclusion from this stating that this law does not contradict laws protecting equal human rights, not only do you not have any argument, you cannot refute mine.

Strawman: Since I never claimed that pro-choice advocates believe that fetuses have equal rights to humans, I never used this strawman argument. I wonder why you would put these words in my mouth? Shall I speculate on your motives again?

Fallacy of many questions: I have presupposed something that has been irrefutably proven to be true: That the right to life in the UDHR applies to not some, but all human beings. Claiming otherwise in the face of hard proof is nonsense.

Fallacy of false analogy: I don't see how this could be a false analogy since I'm not comparing different values and my argument is not "analogous" to anything. My argument stands as a description of what exists. I am merely commenting objectively on the logic of the current situation. All pro-choice premises and conclusions that I have encountered are not logical. The pro-life premise and conclusion I have offered is logical. Prove otherwise. Merely saying it is fallacious when in fact no fallacy is actually present destroys your credibility, not mine.

So, Dr. Rick, I could (with similar authority) say that you are the liar in this situation, but I trust that you aren't deliberately lying, you are merely mistaken in your assumptions.

dk

Its my experience that people find it increasingly difficult to understand one another, even people with the best of intentions, as morality becomes subjective. This morning I listened with amazement at the Iraqi v. US perspective on the war, and I swear they were talking about two different wars. Not that you guys are at war in this discussion, just a thought.

long winded fool

So if we don't know what human beings truly are, how can we pass laws affecting them?

I think that we can take the currently accepted scientific definition and apply it to the current laws which use this word and decide from there. What is a human being? Whatever we as a society declare it is. We as a society have declared that a human being is a member of the family Homonidae of the group homo. If the definition changes, so be it. If the law changes, so be it. But as it stands right now, all human beings are entitled to inalienable rights by one law, and some human beings are not entitled to inalienable rights by another. Which law do we follow? The pro-lifers say the UDHR, the pro-choicers say Roe vs. Wade. The question becomes: "Are the human rights outlined in the UDHR equal and inalienable to all human beings?" For abortion to be legal, this cannot be the case. Some human beings must be exempt from these rights. The motive for exemption in this case is for the convenience of humans who have decided that they do have equal and inalienable rights. Pro-choicers may not like this description, but it is accurate.

Dr Rick

...lwf and I aren't getting anywhere with eachother on this thread.

Rick

dk

I agree, the lengths to which people go to rationalize "pro-choice" with symantics makes me cringe.

Dr Rick

...the lengths to which people go to rationalize pro-life with symantics makes me laugh; I'll cringe if they ever succeed in getting the laws changed.

Rick

dk

Roe was an abuse of judicial power. Its now 30 years later and abortion is still the most divisive issue in every national election. Bush may well get the judicial appointments if he gets a second term. I agree it will get ugly. but that's the price we pay for judicial abuse.

Dr Rick

Roe was a just decision acknowledging and upholding a woman's constitutional rights; any judicial decision that would take away these rights would be an an abuse of judicial power.

Besides, why does the Supreme Court need to do anything if fetuses already have inalienable human rights by law?

Rick