Is The Fetus An Intruder Or An Invited Guest

[Hajman]

Really? So it should be but a matter of a moment's notice to show me an example of a major and minor predicate, and the conclusion therefrom derived.

For what? Which one of your arguments requires one? They've mostly been emotional arguments, not logical. Specify an argument, and I'll try to give you a formal (though possibly not syntatically correct) logical argument.

Like biology, logic is largely irrelevant to most moral arguments, it is largely a creature of formal mathematical reasoning, and sees little use outside of circuit design and programming. To the extent that they do at all, people reason in chains of supporting evidence.

Biology needs logic. Are you implying it doesn't? The Logic in question is the way to reason to come up with acceptable arguments that we can know are valid. Without it, we really can't tell if our conclusions are valid. If you come up with a conclusion that doesn't use logic, you're asking to get burned. Any good conclusion has logic behind it. For example, a contradictory conclusion isn't valid, because it breaks certain logical rules. Also, I thought you were trying to get away from moral arguments. If not, you have two primary choices: Morals from God, or morals from man (derived, by necessity, from logic). Either way doesn't hold up your arguments very well. If you're trying to claim that your arguments don't need logic; well, just prepared to lose the argument. I'd rather be logically objective, not emotionally subjective.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

The fetus qualifies as a parasite in every appreciable biological way if it is unwanted.

You cannot even remember what you say from post to post.

Nobody died and put you in charge of biological nomenclature. A cancer cell is merely a normal cell that has lost it's external reproduction governor. Does that make cancer not a parasite?

When will you tire of this pedantry and engage the question to hand?

[Hajman]

So my point is made, yes? Clearly, if a four year old is not a full citizen, neither is a fetus, and to an appropriately greater degree. It is our job as a society to decide when the prudent time to grant rights is.

Nope, it isn't. Your confusing rights (like that to life) with privaleges (like driving cars). The child has a right to life.

-The Hajman-

[NC_Libertarian]

Having your womb inflated like a balloon for 1/2 a year, being anchor-chained to something that drains you for nourishment, followed by 18 years of indentured servitude is hardly an "inconvienence".

Nothing in comparison to the murder of a human being. And that person could be given up for adoption.

If a stranger did that to you, it would be kidnapping, enslavement, battery and theft. The mother's rights in this regard are not so much used toilet paper, and

A mother's child is no stranger. At any rate she is the one who chose to conceive a child. I mean I'm pro-choice really - you can have the choice to conceive the child or not. But you do not have the right to commit homocide except in self-defense.

there is not such thing as "inalienable right to life", any more than there is such a thing as "inalienable right to life and liberty"

Interesting attitude for a "conservative".

The right to life of a blob of goo that might someday qualify as a citizen,

That's just disgusting. That "blob of goo" is a human being. How does one develop such a callous lack of respect for human life???

does not outweigh the assault and enslavement of an existing citizen with full rights. The law exists to serve the existing citizens who are willing participants in it's social contract. It is both dangerous and stupid to extend those rights, willy-nilly, to anything else.

This is not anything else - this is HUMAN LIFE we are talking about. The assault and enslavement of an existing citizen? What about the assault and murder of killing a baby in it's mother's womb?

[donh]

Biology needs logic. Are you implying it doesn't?

I looked through my last copy of "Science News", and I find not a single syllogism. If you can point one out to me in any natural science journal, please feel free to do so, since you appear to have declined my suggestion that you supply one from the arguments here.

What most people mean is "sensible" when they say logical, as in this case.

[Hajman]

Nobody died and put you in charge of biological nomenclature. A cancer cell is merely a normal cell that has lost it's external reproduction governor. Does that make cancer not a parasite?

Nope, it makes the cancer a disease. A parasite is another organism that lives off an organism. It takes everything, it gives nothing, and it doesn't use the body's permission to do it. A fetus doesn't feed off a body...it's fed from a body. In other words, the fetus has biological permission to be there. .The parasite doesn't.

-The Hajman-

[chimera]

A fetus may be "human" or "aware" or "viable" or "natural" or anything else you care to conjure up in the rights game, but it is clearly NOT a full citizen, and not necessarily entitled to a citizen's full gamut of rights, unlike the mother. When was the last time a fetus was issued a driver's license?

A telling statement. Governments grant citizenship in the context you present, so you seem to be saying that the "full gamut of rights", including, presumably, the right to live, is granted by government.

Evidently there is a fundamental disagreement here, the crux of which is the notion of inalienable rights. The founders of our country recognized the importance of acknowledging the existence of these, and the government's proper role in safeguarding them, not granting them. Our laws recognize that non-citizens have fundamental protections under the law. Their citizen status is not relevant to the consideration that they should not be subject to acts of murder.

For abortion to be defensible, you have to argue from a position of denying that the unborn child is not human life, or, if it is, there is a class of human beings that are exempt from the basic protection that we afford in the vast majority of cases: the right to be left alone and not killed by another. Our society, and others, make a case for some conditions under which the life of another human being may be taken, but, in their essence, these are based, in one way or another, on the notion of self-defense. Other than in very limited cases wherein the mother's life is 100% at risk of death from the pregnancy, it is difficult to see that abortion on demand meets the criteria established for the cases wherein taking of human life is justified from an ethical viewpoint.

[donh]

Nope, it isn't. Your confusing rights (like that to life) with privaleges (like driving cars). The child has a right to life.

Does the child have a right to vote? Does a child have a right to move to another state and take a job? Do you think a right to vote is a minor priveledge?

[tallhappy]

Re 82, no one put me in charge.

I am simply pointing out basic biological theory. What I'm saying is not controversial or esoteric but basic and fundamental to the discipline.

I would suggest you quit while you are behind. You have already shown yourself to present many negative attributes I will refrain from enumerating with your comments.

[donh]

the right to live, is granted by government.

However much I may appreciate the rhetoric of the Bill of Rights, and I do--in the real world citizenship is an earned right.

[Hajman]

I looked through my last copy of "Science News", and I find not a single syllogism. If you can point one out to me in any natural science journal, please feel free to do so, since you appear to have declined my suggestion that you supply one from the arguments here.

It's logical if it flows in a reasonable manner (breaking no logical rules). It doesn't need formal syntax in order to be logical. As long as it doesn't break any logical rules, it's logically valid.

What most people mean is "sensible" when they say logical, as in this case.

I don't. I'm using actual logic. People who only try to be sensible may or may not have good arguments (for example, emotional arguments may seem sensible to some, but they arn't necessarily good arguments: such as "It's for the children"). Don't confuse the sensible with a good solid argument. Are you telling me that you're arguments only have to be "sensible", but not solid?

-The Hajman-

[tallhappy]

There are only stem cells at conception.

Once again you are wrong.

And it is basic. You don't even know what conception means.

[Hajman]

Does the child have a right to vote? Does a child have a right to move to another state and take a job? Do you think a right to vote is a minor priveledge?

Minor privelege, major privelege, it's still a privelege. The 'right' to vote isn't a right. It's a privelege. Do non-citizens have the 'right' to vote? No? Rights apply to all people. Priveleges apply to people in specific situations.

-The Hajman-

[tallhappy]

I have realized something about donh. He/she is a nutcase.

And an ignorant one.

He/she is obviously not interested in discourse grounded in knowledge or consistent argument.

[Hajman]

However much I may appreciate the rhetoric of the Bill of Rights, and I do--in the real world citizenship is an earned right.

Rights arn't earned. Priveleges are. And yes, citizenship is a privelege.

-The Hajman-

[chimera]

the right to live, is granted by government.

However much I may appreciate the rhetoric of the Bill of Rights, and I do--in the real world citizenship is an earned right.

A request, sir, if you please. Please avoid context-chopping. You took part of my statement out of context and made it appear, intentionally or not, that I was saying that the right to live is granted by government. I did not say that. I said your argument indicted that you think that rights, including the right to live, is granted by government.

I guess I have to ask you what "earned" implies, because you seem to be drifting onto thinner and thinner ice. That is, if citizenship is "earned", and citizenship is the determiner of rights (including the right to live), we are now faced with an ethical system wherein what one does (or perhaps does not do) have a direct bearing on whether one is afforded protection from the acts of another to kill them. Dangerous ground, yes?

[Hajman]

I have realized something about donh. He/she is a nutcase.

And an ignorant one.

He/she is obviously not interested in discourse grounded in knowledge or consistent argument.

Aye. An emotional one this freeper is, isn't s/he? But still, s/he's still a fellow freeper. Besides, I enjoy these debates to sharpen my debate skills. They constantly need practice. You know what they say, if you don't use it, you lose it.

-The Hajman-

[donh]

Rights arn't earned. Priveleges are. And yes, citizenship is a privelege.

See how fast your right to life disappears if you don't exercise moral restraint and refrain from taking the lives of others. Contrary to popular sentiment, all rights are earned by constantly exercising your moral competence, which fetuses have none of.

[A Navy Vet]

"It is our job as a society to decide when the prudent time to grant rights is."

Therein lies the reason you will never understand the fetus versus host (mother) issue. Societies nor governments of those societies GRANT rights. Rights are inherent in human beings...and the right to exist is probably the most germaine to this issue.

[donh]

Interesting attitude for a "conservative".

Very well. Please explain how an absolute right to life can co-exist with an absolute right to liberty and happiness. My conservative principals notwithstanding, references to the Declarations (or anyone's) ideas about absolute rights are not bulldozer arguments. Taken literally as such, they are hogwash. In the real world, this has to mean that enumerated rights are really important, not trumps. That's why we have Supreme Courts adjudicate the law. In the real world, differing ligitimate rights can conflict.