<p>What if some people just really don’t want to do anything? See, I think we should just get to pick our jobs out of a hat.</p>
<p>“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it”</p>
<p>I just don’t believe men are created at conception. Just a difference in our opinions.</p>
<p>I disagree with you on abortion. If a woman doesn’t want her child but the government forces her to keep it do you really think she’ll be a good mother? And the foster care system is already bad enough…btw have you read Freakonomics? Legalized abortions did more for reducing crime in the US than any police system could. And abortion isn’t really killing an infant, it’s just cells and not a fetus yet. Women deserve the right to control their bodies, pro-choice is the way to go.</p>
<p>Is the embryo’s life its own? If you displace the embryo from the womb, will it be able to survive? No? That’s why I believe the right to choose is completely that of the mother. It’s almost like the embryo’s “renting” the mother’s life… mother’s life, mother’s rights.</p>
I would rather be fostered or adopted than dead; wouldn’t you?</p>
<p>Human beings are “just cells” at every stage. There is no logical or scientific line after it becomes a human organism. Why do women deserve to be able to kill another human being?</p>
<p>
So it is not murder for me to kill a baby that cannot survive without a special artificial environment, a woman who cannot live without a pacemaker, a man with an artificial lung? Your definition of life is illogical and does not follow from scientific evidence.</p>
<p>That wasn’t my definition of life. Don’t put words in my mouth. I said that the mother has the right to choose to abort since the fetus is living off of her. </p>
<p>Those other people aren’t actually living off a human life that isn’t their own. They’re using instruments to help them live their lives.</p>
<p>How are we meant to parse that sentence? I’m getting these facts:</p>
<ul>
<li>All human beings are born free</li>
<li>All human beings are equal in dignity and rights</li>
<li>All human beings are endowed with reason and conscience</li>
<li>All human beings should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood</li>
</ul>
<p>So the second part would guarantee the rights of the unborn human.</p>
<p>All human beings are born.
They (the humans born) are born free and are equal in dignity and rights.
They (the humans born) are endowed with reason and conscience.
They (the humans born) should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.</p>
<p>^ I think it happened when I jumped in and pointed out the part of Billy’s post that said “born”</p>
You need to learn how nouns work; the noun is “human beings” not “human beings are born.”</p>
<p>
Because I have bested the capitalists in argument and so they have tried to attack me on another front? Or, more likely, this place explodes at every controversial issue.</p>
<p>The pronoun “they” referred to " born humans", doesn’t it? Did I use “human beings are born” as the noun, or did I use “human beings are born” to point out that the excerpt established that human beings…are born.</p>
<p>Well if this is just going to be the controversy thread, how bout that Arnold Schwarzenegger. He’s impressively fertile for a man you’d assume has used lots of steroids and would have shriveled genitalia.</p>
Human being are born… unless they’re killed in the womb by people denying their humanity.
*
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.*</p>
<p>A sixth grader could do this. Let’s look at a scientific definition of a human being: a living Homo Sapiens organism.</p>
<p>Unless you want to adopt a ludicrous and superstitious dehumanizing belief that a human being isn’t really human until you can “see” it, the unborn must be included. I prefer to side with science on this one.</p>
<p>Allow me to further develop this idea. I have posted the following before, but I am unsure if any such threads remain. LaTina, I believe you have PMed me in response to this, but I am posting it for the benefit of others.</p>
<hr>
<p>The argument that follows relies on one assumption. Since this is the internet, many people who think they’re so clever will try to disagree with it, but society has already decided on it. It is: “Murder should be illegal.”</p>
<p>I will prove in a deductively valid logical case, using a pure hypothetical syllogism, that abortion is murder. The pure hypothetical syllogism is as follows:</p>
<p>If abortion (A), then the intentional and unjust killing of a human life (B)</p>
<h2>+If the intentional and unjust killing of a human life (B), then murder (C)</h2>
<p>Therefore, if abortion (A), then murder (C)</p>
<p>The argument is deductively valid. This means that if the premises are true, then the conclusion MUST be true. As a solid definition of murder would be “the intentional and unjust killing of a human life,” then all that remains is to prove that abortion is the intentional and unjust killing of a human life. I shall do so point by point, starting with “life”:</p>
<p>(1) Life: The embryo/fetus is a living being. It is a separate organism displaying all of the characteristics of life. This is a biological fact.</p>
<p>(2) Human: The embryo/fetus is a human being. Embryo and fetus are just developmental terms, similar to “infant” or “adolescent.” It is ridiculous superstition to assert that a human is not human until it can be physically seen. Genetics has shown us that, upon conception, a separate human being, distinct from both mother and father, is created. This is not just a collection of human cells (such as one’s finger), but a full human organism in itself. Further, any assertions as to its inhumanity are scientifically indefensible. It is a living being (see point 1) with the DNA of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, thus making it just as human as a born human. It is not a lizard until it passes out of the womb. Arguments from development are similarly void, unless such an argument includes the lesser humanity of children compared to adults. If a line is to be drawn, such a line is nowhere more logical or cut-and-dry as at conception. The fetus is human, a biological/genetic fact.</p>
<p>(3) Killing: Obviously, the aim of abortion is to kill the unborn individual.</p>
<p>(4) Unjust: This is among the most contested points. I will tackle some of the situations most often presented. (a) A woman is raped. While this is a tragic occurrence, the killing of a human life is not called for. Assuming we don’t live in ancient times, we can safely make the call that the crimes of the father are not the crimes of the child. A human being innocent of rape should not be murdered because of that rape. While it may be easier on the woman, it is still indefensible. If a raped woman would feel better through bashing the rapist’s newborn baby over the head with a brick, such an action would remain illegal. The equal status of a fetus as a “human life” has already been established. (b) The life and/or health of the mother is in danger. While it is regrettable that there would be any complications in pregnancy, and it is hoped that modern medical technology will soon conquer these problems, murdering one human to save another remains illegal. If I were dying of heart failure, and you were the only person whose heart was a viable match, could I legally kill you to take your heart and save myself? No. If I had a conjoined twin who created medical complications for me that might end up leading to my early death, could I legally kill him? No. The equal humanity of the unborn has already been established, so this argument stands, even if it makes some squeamish.</p>
<p>(5) Intentional: Abortion is a voluntary act with the intent of eliminating the fetus. If the death of a fetus is accidental, then it is not abortion. This is not a contested point, anyway.</p>
<p>I would like to further point out that murdering a pregnant woman will already get you charged with double murder. Apparently it is only a human life if the mother wants it to be. This, of course, is illogical and wrong, as humanity is inherent.</p>
<p>Thus, the pure hypothetical syllogism stands:</p>
<p>If A, then B</p>
<h2>+ If B, then C</h2>
<p>Therefore, if A, then C</p>
<p>This logic is deductively valid, and the premises have been proven true. Those who would argue against it stand on a case that is at best logically weak, but, more realistically, nil.</p>
<p>I always hated your argument for abortion, billymc.</p>
<p>It seems to me to be the most complete misuse of logic. Granted, I haven’t read it since last time. I will try to digest it sometime when I am in the mood for such things.</p>