Question to Pro-Forced-Childbirth lobby

[The Terrible Sweal]

Exactly. You say that it's important what biologists define as 'human'. I say it's important what the Chinese define as 'human'. TaDa! We can both play at rhetorical sophistry.

It strikes me as odd that, when debating the existence of God, you are happy to pull out the testimony of science, but when talking of the humanity of the unborn, scientific testimony is suddenly irrelevant. Can you explain this contradiction?

You perceive a contradiction because you are mistaken that I resort to science when debating the existence of God. But there would be no inherent contradiction implied anyway. The decision to outlaw abortion is a political/legal one. The question of God's existence is much more 'natural' and so science is even more relevant there.

Expert testimony is admissible in court, but you prefer an ad populum argument. Why?

That's a mistaken grasp of the use of expert testimony. It does not decide a question, it informs the decisionmaker who must decide according to the law.

Non sequitur. At one time, constitutions denied rights to blacks, women, Jews etc. Therefore, what is law does not necessarily reflect what is truth, so you are arguing with insufficient evidence.

Apparently I have not been clear enough. The question is how our society should handle abortion. In our society it has been determined and set out in the constitution that women shall be free, equal individuals. Accordingly, to discuss the preservation of a fetus against the wishes of the woman bearing it in our society, you must, it seems to me, posit some quality or status in the fetus which overrides the rights our society provides to women.

You haven't yet got over the hurdle of establishing your asserted meaning of 'human being'

I have defined "human being" as a unique individual that belongs to the species homo sapiens. If you do not want to accept that, please tell me why.

No no no. We are examining the logic YOU claim to have on your side. You have defined a 'human being' as such and such. (1) Why? (2) Given that definition, what flows from it and why?

[Hugo]

there would be no inherent contradiction implied anyway. The decision to outlaw abortion is a political/legal one.

I am attempting to prove that that decision is based upon erroneous assumptions, as the political/legal decisions to regard blacks, women and Jews as unequal and subhuman were also based upon erroneous assumptions.

Apparently I have not been clear enough. The question is how our society should handle abortion. In our society it has been determined and set out in the constitution that women shall be free, equal individuals.

If the unborn are human, it follows that half of abortions were human females. Therefore, around 55,000 Canadian women are being put to death each year without consent. How does this square with a notion that women shall be free and equal?

Accordingly, to discuss the preservation of a fetus against the wishes of the woman bearing it in our society, you must, it seems to me, posit some quality or status in the fetus which overrides the rights our society provides to women.

The right to life supersedes all other rights, because without it, all other rights are meaningless, and because without life there is no individual who may have other rights. If the unborn is alive and human, it follows that its right to live supersedes anybody else's rights saving that the right of the fetus to live should impinge upon the right of the mother to live, to whit, when a pregnancy poses a danger to the life of the mother.

In that case, abortion is the only logical choice. Were the mother to die, the fetus would die anyway, and taking one life is always preferable to taking two.

No no no. We are examining the logic YOU claim to have on your side. You have defined a 'human being' as such and such. (1) Why? (2) Given that definition, what flows from it and why?

1) Because that is the universally acknowledged scientific consensus. Biology and species are not defined politically, but scientifically.

2) That the unborn are human beings and as such, should be granted human rights.

I want you to tell me how you define "human", or failing that, what is wrong with my definition of "human." You say that I am on the spot, however, you are arguing with me, which means you must have an alternative viewpoint. State it.

I also believe that shifting the focus to my arguments is an attempt to conjure up a smokescreen that will hide the questions that pro-choice people cannot rationally answer in a way that supports their beliefs, for instance, when does life begin?

What you are saying amounts to, "I don't care what science says, I want to talk about political decisions." I have shown to you that political decisions in this field have been grossly and malevolently wrong. Science, on the other hand, has very rarely been wrong in classifying species, certainly not in the last 30 years.

I also want to ask you, if the unborn is not human, what is it?

[The Terrible Sweal]

If the unborn are human, it follows that half of abortions were human females. Therefore, around 55,000 Canadian women are being put to death each year without consent. How does this square with a notion that women shall be free and equal?

"If the unborn are human" (such that they can claim human rights), THEN I still don't see that it is clear that it can impose itself on a woman to require her to give birth to it.

Accordingly, to discuss the preservation of a fetus against the wishes of the woman bearing it in our society, you must, it seems to me, posit some quality or status in the fetus which overrides the rights our society provides to women.

The right to life supersedes all other rights, because without it, all other rights are meaningless, and because without life there is no individual who may have other rights.

Your statement is faulty because it's incomplete, and again begs the question. The right to life of bugs is superceded by the right of humans to squash them. If a woman has a right to squash a mosquito on her arm, why can't she choose to abort a fetus? What reasonably makes a fetus different from a bug as far as a citizen's rights go?

If the unborn is alive and human, it follows that its right to live supersedes anybody else's rights ...

Simply SAYING that doesn't make it so.

...saving that the right of the fetus to live should impinge upon the right of the mother to live, to whit, when a pregnancy poses a danger to the life of the mother. ...

In that case, abortion is the only logical choice. Were the mother to die, the fetus would die anyway, and taking one life is always preferable to taking two.

Well, what about where the fetus could be saved or the mother could be saved, but not both?

No no no. We are examining the logic YOU claim to have on your side. You have defined a 'human being' as such and such. (1) Why? (2) Given that definition, what flows from it and why?

1) Because that is the universally acknowledged scientific consensus. Biology and species are not defined politically, but scientifically.

Appeal to authority, and irrelevant to the question at issue.

2) That the unborn are human beings and as such, should be granted human rights.

Begging the question.

You're not doing all that well showing how your position is logically sustainable, which, you'll recall was what I took you up on.

I also believe that shifting the focus to my arguments is an attempt to conjure up a smokescreen ...

Hooey. You offered your position for examination, I took you up on it.

[Hugo]

"If the unborn are human" (such that they can claim human rights), THEN I still don't see that it is clear that it can impose itself on a woman to require her to give birth to it.

Because the right of a human to live supercedes the rights of another human, except the right of that other human to live.

Your statement is faulty because it's incomplete, and again begs the question. The right to life of bugs is superceded by the right of humans to squash them.

Strawman argument.

Well, what about where the fetus could be saved or the mother could be saved, but not both?

If you can tell me a situation where that would be the case I'll debate it. Otherwise you might as well ask me, "what if the sun didn't rise tomorrow?"

Appeal to authority, and irrelevant to the question at issue.

The allegation you made was that the unborn are not human. I don't find the opinions on the question of whether or not the unborn are human from experts who have made their careers studying the unborn "irrelevant" to the question of whether or not the unborn are human.

Hooey. You offered your position for examination, I took you up on it.

That's not even true. You made a statement and invited me to attack it. Now you are refusing to clarify that statement when it is attacked.

Begging the question.

Not in the slightest. You asked me in (2) to follow through my statement from (1), which I did. I established in (1) that, according to all scientific evidence and consensus, the unborn are human. Then I stated in (2) that all humans should be granted the right to live, and as the unborn are human, as I established in (1), that would necessarily include them.