Abortion-Killing: The Silent Genocide: 2 Billion Deaths Victims Worldwide.

[Angrboda]

Angrboda said: "Either, a, you are implicitly asserting that the preborn are possessed of all human rights including the right to life, which is the same as your conclusion and is therefore an example of begging the question and is thus an invalid argument."

No, this is not correct. That could be said of any Argument. Take this one: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal. You cannot say that in a I am implicitly asserting Socrates is mortal, and therefore, my conclusion is invalid. A is a General Truth. B is a Particular Statement. C follows from both.

It doesn't matter, Nish, you are assuming that the preborn have those rights in premise #1 and since that is what is at issue, your assuming it is not allowed. Otherwise I can just assume the opposite. It becomes an ipse dixit argument and is therefore invalid. I've given you four ways it can be described as wrong and you quibble with one because you don't like the conclusion. You are a textbook example of a person who engages in motivated reasoning. Instead of trying to explain why you think the preborn have rights, your answer is, "Because I said so." Sorry Nish, that's not logic or reason.

[Nishant Xavier]

Sorry, Angrboda, but that's not my reason. I argue from the General to the Particular. All Human Beings have All Human Rights. The Preborn are Human Beings. Therefore, they have all human rights. A is the General Principle. B is the Particular Application. C logically follows.

It is exactly the same, in principle, as All Men are Mortal, Socrates is a Man, and therefore necessarily, Socrates is Mortal.

The preborn have rights because they are human beings - the same as the post-born, the same as you and me. Of what is True Universally, i.e. a General Truth, it is either true of all or not at all. That is, if Socrates is a Man, and yet Socrates is not Mortal, it necessarily follows all men are not mortal. Similarly, if X is a human being, yet X doesn't have all human rights, it necessarily follows that all human beings do not have all human rights. Want to maintain that?

[arewethereyet]

iT's a paiN in the aRse to read things whEn random damN leTterS are capitalizeD for No Apparent Reason.

[Angrboda]

Sorry, Angrboda, but that's not my reason. I argue from the General to the Particular. All Human Beings have All Human Rights. The Preborn are Human Beings. Therefore, they have all human rights. A is the General Principle. B is the Particular Application. C logically follows.

Then premise #1 is not true and your argument fails.

[Bucky Ball]

Sorry, Angrboda, but that's not my reason. I argue from the General to the Particular. All Human Beings have All Human Rights. The Preborn are Human Beings. Therefore, they have all human rights. A is the General Principle. B is the Particular Application. C logically follows.

It is exactly the same, in principle, as All Men are Mortal, Socrates is a Man, and therefore necessarily, Socrates is Mortal.

The preborn have rights because they are human beings - the same as the post-born, the same as you and me. Of what is True Universally, i.e. a General Truth, it is either true of all or not at all. That is, if Socrates is a Man, and yet Socrates is not Mortal, it necessarily follows all men are not mortal. Similarly, if X is a human being, yet X doesn't have all human rights, it necessarily follows that all human beings do not have all human rights. Want to maintain that?

Wrong. 

That's nothing but your opinion. Your assertions about rights is false.
You keep asserting things, (like the qualities of Limbo), which are not known to be facts but which are nothing but your beliefs, and thus what you write is totally dishonest 
as there is no general agreement that your opinions are true. You state them as if they were generally accepted as "truth".  
Your beliefs are not facts. Your opinions are not facts. 

Those who have "rights" are defined in law. In US law, "persons" have rights. When personhood begins is not defined in law here. 
I doubt it is there. Your religious opinions are neither truth, generally accepted, or law. There are others, FAR more educated than you, who in no way agree with anything you say.
Thus as usual your oversimplifications and generalizations, opinions and beliefs are not facts, and your writing is totally dishonest. 
You incorrectly state them as facts and "truth" but you're just blustering your usual bullshit.

In almost all of the civilized world, there is a clearly recognized hierarchy between a potential actualized life and a fully functioning one, even by the religious.
There are exclusions "for the life of the mother". Thus it is clearly recognized that any rights an unborn may have are clearly less than the right of a potential mother to continue to live.
The possible rights of the unborn are not the same as the rights of the mother. Pretending or ignoring this is not true, is dishonest and false. It's recognized. the world over.

[Neo-Scholastic]

@Neo-Scholastic

And term human being applies to all stages of development be it an embryo, fetus, infant, toddler, child, or adult. Each is ontologically a human being. 

Ontologically, every cell in every human being is a human being, because - with cloning technology - ever cell is a potential human.

When I discard my fingernail clippings, is that killing a baby? What if I spit on the sidewalk - should I face a murder charge for cell in that blob of spittle? Suppose someone cremates a deceased loved one…are you prepared to claim that they’ve committed trillions of baby-murders? Sheesh.

Boru

Well first,...there is a difference between a human being and being human, is there not?

[Angrboda]

@Neo-Scholastic


Ontologically, every cell in every human being is a human being, because - with cloning technology - ever cell is a potential human.

When I discard my fingernail clippings, is that killing a baby? What if I spit on the sidewalk - should I face a murder charge for cell in that blob of spittle? Suppose someone cremates a deceased loved one…are you prepared to claim that they’ve committed trillions of baby-murders? Sheesh.

Boru

Well first,...there is a difference between a human being and being human, is there not?

The bigger question is what it means to be a being, which is inextricably bound up in the question of what it means for something to be alive. All you're doing is taking your ball off the fairway and dropping it in the rough.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sorry, Angrboda, but that's not my reason. I argue from the General to the Particular. All Human Beings have All Human Rights. The Preborn are Human Beings. Therefore, they have all human rights. A is the General Principle. B is the Particular Application. C logically follows.

It is exactly the same, in principle, as All Men are Mortal, Socrates is a Man, and therefore necessarily, Socrates is Mortal.

The preborn have rights because they are human beings - the same as the post-born, the same as you and me. Of what is True Universally, i.e. a General Truth, it is either true of all or not at all. That is, if Socrates is a Man, and yet Socrates is not Mortal, it necessarily follows all men are not mortal. Similarly, if X is a human being, yet X doesn't have all human rights, it necessarily follows that all human beings do not have all human rights. Want to maintain that?

Wrong. 

That's nothing but your opinion. Your assertions about rights is false.
You keep asserting things, (like the qualities of Limbo), which are not known to be facts but which are nothing but your beliefs, and thus what you write is totally dishonest 
as there is no general agreement that your opinions are true. You state them as if they were generally accepted as "truth".  
Your beliefs are not facts. Your opinions are not facts. 

Those who have "rights" are defined in law. In US law, "persons" have rights. When personhood begins is not defined in law here. 
I doubt it is there. Your religious opinions are neither truth, generally accepted, or law. There are others, FAR more educated than you, who in no way agree with anything you say.
Thus as usual your oversimplifications and generalizations, opinions and beliefs are not facts, and your writing is totally dishonest. 
You incorrectly state them as so, but you're just blustering your usual bullshit.

You are correct. Athiesm undermines faith in human rights. Human rights are value supported by Christian faith.

[Bucky Ball]

Wrong. 

That's nothing but your opinion. Your assertions about rights is false.
You keep asserting things, (like the qualities of Limbo), which are not known to be facts but which are nothing but your beliefs, and thus what you write is totally dishonest 
as there is no general agreement that your opinions are true. You state them as if they were generally accepted as "truth".  
Your beliefs are not facts. Your opinions are not facts. 

Those who have "rights" are defined in law. In US law, "persons" have rights. When personhood begins is not defined in law here. 
I doubt it is there. Your religious opinions are neither truth, generally accepted, or law. There are others, FAR more educated than you, who in no way agree with anything you say.
Thus as usual your oversimplifications and generalizations, opinions and beliefs are not facts, and your writing is totally dishonest. 
You incorrectly state them as so, but you're just blustering your usual bullshit.

You are correct. Athiesm undermines faith in human rights. Human rights are value supported by Christian faith.

LMAO
Tell that to your gay friends. Not without examples it doesn't.
You should know by now how to spell atheism

[The Architect Of Fate]

Well first,...there is a difference between a human being and being human, is there not?

No there really isn't 

You are correct. Athiesm undermines faith in human rights. Human rights are value supported by Christian faith.

No, it doesn't it strengthens an acceptance of human rights. Christain has no belief in human rights it's as anti-human as an idealogy can get.