long winded fool

I'm not trying to convince you Dr. Rick. I'm just putting out what I believe is a logical pro-life argument and seeing if anyone can refute it. I'm willing to listen to criticism, however it must accurately reflect the argument if I am to alter or withdraw my statements. Your objections are noted, but as they do not apply to my argument I can only point this out and stick to my original logic until I am shown that it is in error. Maybe I'm being illogical, but your objections just do not correspond with what I believe is the only sensible interpretation of the argument. I've tried to be as clear and as lucid about my argument as I possibly can, but I suppose I'm still just not being clear enough for you. If there is any other way I can put it, it escapes me.

Women do not have the constitutional right to kill any human being unless it is in self-defense. Dk is correct. By definition, to grant this right is an abuse of judicial power. It violates equal rights by giving one minority more rights than another.

Obviously if those inalienable human rights are being violated, the Supreme Court ought to do something. That is their job.

dk

In the Dred Scott decision the Supreme Court denied blacks access to the federal courts, and the decision lead to the Civl War. Inalienable rights are a minimal propostion of human dignity. Absent human dignity people find killing, enslaving, stealing and betraying one another a matter of self preseration. The US Government was specifically denied the libety to take human life with habeas corpus, so its fallacious to propose government can give women the right to kill the unborn. Abortion deprives everyone of dignity. The US was a "can do" problem solving society, but is becoming a society (Western Civilization) that increasingly kills people to solve problems.

Dr Rick

Obviously no one's inalienable human rights are being violated by abortion. Your argument is not logical. It is based on false premises about human rights applying to fetuses and equivocation on how human being is defined. The US specifically defines human being to exclude fetuses, and the UN has defined the rights in its charter to apply to those that are born. Your argument, if accepted, would grant inalienable rights to chimpanzees, because Dictionary.com defines human beings as "n : all of the inhabitants of the earth," and as you may be aware, chimpanzees inhabit the earth; feel free too apply your idiosyncratic reasoning to this definition.

You can't understand why you are wrong, but I post here to let others see how absurd your reasoning is. You found a dictionary definition that you think grants rights to fetuses that they do not have, and I found a dictionary definition that by your twisted reasoning grants human rights to chimps just as readily.

I like chimps, but I don't think I'll accept an application of your bizzare argument and conclude that chimps have inalienable human rights.

I'm not trying to convince you lwf. I'm just refuting what I believe is an illogical pro-life argument and seeing if anyone can learn from it. I'm willing to listen to criticism, however it must accurately reflect the argument if I am to alter or withdraw my statements. Your objections are noted, but as they do not apply to my argument. I can only point this out and stick to my original logic until I am shown that it is in error. You're being illogical, and your wishful thinking just doesn't correspond with the only sensible interpretation of the argument and isn't rational. I've tried to be as clear and as lucid about my argument as I possibly can, but I suppose I'm still just not being clear enough for you. If there is any other way I can put it, it escapes me.

Fallacies of false analogy, non sequitur, and non causa pro causa (false cause)

One might as well be arguing this:

"Inalienable rights are a minimal propostion of human dignity. Absent human dignity people find killing, enslaving, stealing and betraying one another a matter of self preseration. The US Government specifically denied abortion rights to women for years, and that lead to overpopulation, WW II, and Watergate. Denying women their rights deprives everyone of dignity. The US was a "can do" problem solving society, but is becoming a society (Western Civilization) that increasingly kills people to solve problems."

Rick

Gurdur

Chimp circumciser !

Dr Rick

It's illogical not to grant chimps circumcision. Since the Boston Tea Party, chimps have been denied access to many banks and most post offices, and they almost never get to drink the best French wines. Now we're at war in Iraq. We used to be a "can do" nation, but now chimps have been denied dignity.

I've presented a logical argument; the laws are obviously illogical. I posting this to see if anyone can refute it. I'm willing to listen to criticism, however it must accurately reflect the argument if I am to alter or withdraw my statements.

Rick

Gurdur

I not trying even.

Psychic

Guys… I’ve been enjoying it! you can check the number of my posts to see that I am a new user, and I would like to state that this was the most elegant thread that I’ve seen around here.
Anyway… I’d like to put in some arguments into this debate.
For LWF I would say, you are arguing that the UDHR has granted all members of the species homo sapiens sapiens have the inalienable right to life. And that fetuses are member of the species, so fetuses’ right to life is protected by the UDHR and any laws legalizing abortion would constitute a violation, and be in utter contradiction to, the UDHR.
But I’d argue that your inference, which you claim to be logical (I’ll leave this to Dr. Rick), has failed to prove presence in many of the laws legalizing contradicting ‘inalienable right to life”. as a first example, I would argue that a murder, committed in the name of Self-defense, would not be prohibited by any law, thus depriving the murdered human being of its alienable right to life. as a second example would be simply: Wars. Where there two conditions in which the UN would deem using armed force against certain groups lawful (Peace-keeping forces, and being attacked in your homeland). In addition to some others. yet the UDHR didn’t specify that “all human beings have the inalienable right to life unless bla bla bla”
And to Dr. Rick, just because LWF is literally Long-winded, there is no need to cling into every word he says extricating fallacies of inference, I’d rather try to extricate the main concepts from his X-large posts. And that would be just for us to get somewhere in this debate, for off course you have the inalienable right to use your logic based armament.

long winded fool

Very true. The inalienable right to life is often surrendered (voluntarily or even involuntarily) and thus revoked in cases where not revoking it puts other human lives in immediate danger. (Self-defense, criminal execution, war, etc.) It is never revoked for the sake of convenience. In my argument, abortion to protect the life of the mother is perfectly acceptable. The fetus surrenders its inalienable right to life as soon as its existence is obviously threatening the continued survival of another human being. Abortion to protect the mother's right to privacy, liberty, even freedom from pain, is not. All of these rights are important, but none are important enough to revoke another human's right to life. When I say "inalienable," it is with the understanding that self-defense, war, criminal executions and other things designed to protect the innocent from the dangerous are exceptions. A fetus directly threatening the life of its mother involuntarily surrenders its right to life. A fetus threatening it's mother's lifestyle and privacy should not logically warrant abortion. But, as Dr. Rick will remind us, it does.

Psychic

Guess I should've seen it coming, I think Prudency is a must.

long winded fool

I agree. It is prudent to not kill something that might be an innocent human being.