Anti-Abortion = Anti-Personal-Privacy

Who or what creates rights if not the "bestowers"? And if they can be bestowed, can they not be rescinded?

What is the source of the raw material that they zygote utilizes?

Human rights are codified and enforced by human consensus.

Human rights are a manifestation of our human survival instinct.

What is the source of the raw material that they zygote utilizes?

It doesn't matter.

Human rights are codified and enforced by human consensus.

So if 10 of my boys and I voted unanimously to assault a woman in our group, our consensus would dictate her "sovereign territory" as you put it?

Take a biopsy of the object in question.

Send it to a laboratory.

Ask them if the sample is 100% human. 

It certainly does matter. 

Imagine that you invite a friend over to your house for an evening and then ask them to leave.

About three months later, you find that they left a small mass of cells growing under your kitchen sink.

Now this mass of cells is symbiotically connected to your electrical system and your water lines and has been eating small amounts of food from your cabinets, and you figure out pretty quickly that if you don't remove this thing, it's going to cost you a lot of money in supplies and it may even permanently change the shape of your house.

It never takes long for someone to trot-out the old, "appeal to atrocity" argument.

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best.

CONSENSUS =/= 51%

For example, if the assaulted woman feels she has been treated unfairly, then she may flee the group, or cause direct harm to individuals within your group.

History teaches us that treating people atrociously usually ends badly.

HOWEVER, If you are within the boundaries of a larger society, then you may have to explain your actions to the authorities.

You know this is clearly an argument from authority... 

...because you are not citing any papers or study simply pushing the burden on me to prove your claims... 

...or if you are wrong then it would be supporting me. At that point of me actually getting this done you would've forgotten about the subject entirely or even discredit the thing I just did. Do you have a paper on this or are you going to carry on pushing the burden of proof to me?

Now if this doesn't support your claim/ an argument of authority why aren't you answering my question which is "What standard are you using to declare a thing having 100% human cells?"

I'm saying that the fetus is its own distinct living being, and platitudes against this  not only have little justification but are unnecessary. The mother's right over her womb is absolute.

The mother's right over her womb is absolute.

Because your statement about rights is all-inclusive, even atrocities would be subject to this consensus. Do you disagree?

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best.

Rights are not about what one can do. There are laws against murder, but there are those who still murder because they "can." Rights are concepts which delineate a moral economy. You called it an atrocity for a reason. Can an atrocity reflect said moral economy by mere consensus?

Can an atrocity reflect said moral economy by mere consensus?

CONSENSUS =/= 51%

consensus does not not equal 51%. And if my calculations are correct, my scenario conveyed a 91% majority.

History teaches us that treating people atrociously usually ends badly.

Wouldn't that suggest that individuals enforce their own rights?

HOWEVER, If you are within the boundaries of a larger society, then you may have to explain your actions to the authorities.

How much of that large society's consensus is enough, then?

The zygote/embryo/fetus is functionally a parasite that shares some dna with each parent, but 100% of its food supply (and therefore its biomass) is provided by the mother exclusively.

The zygote/embryo/fetus is-itself less than 1% "father" and over 99.999% "mother".

Also, 100% of the physical risk of permanent physiological change and or disfigurement is borne by the mother.

Appeals to atrocity trigger a shut-down of the pre-frontal-cortex, impeding reasonable thought.

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL HAZARD.

Yes.  For example, [LINK]

Interesting, your entire society is comprised of 11 males and only one female?

I'm pretty sure you're going to die.

You mean like the woman in your example?

Everyone you fail to convince is a likely criminal.

Can a society function with 49% criminals?  Probably not.

The zygote/embryo/fetus is-itself less than 1% "father" and over 99.999% "mother".

Also, 100% of the physical risk of permanent physiological change and or disfigurement is borne by the mother.

If we broaden that which we consider parasitic, or even analogize, infants are no different.

They consume resources at the expense of their custodians. And those proportions need work. (I know you're attempting a conceptual rhetoric intended to reflect the proportions of labor and resources, but my point was about the genes.)

And you don't have to convince me. I agree with most of what you said.

But trivializing the life of a zygote/embryo/fetus is a cop-out.

It's also cognitive dissonance.

It's means to justify abortion,

...while also obligating parents/custodians to an infant's care when reflecting the logic back.

I reconcile the justification for an abortion by removing all obligation a parent has to its child. Anything less is contradiction.

Appeals to atrocity trigger a shut-down of the pre-frontal-cortex, impeding reasonable thought.

Does it, now?

If you are a perfectly isolated society, then you can do whatever you can convince the group is best WITHOUT FEAR OF LEGAL HAZARD.

True. But are rights merely legal privileges, or is there particular meaning in referring to it as a "human right"?

Yes.  For example, [LINK]

What moral economy did that reflect?

Interesting, your entire society is comprised of 11 males and only one female?

I'm pretty sure you're going to die.

Well, 10 of us will--maybe 9. But the point still stands.

You mean like the woman in your example?

Yes.

Everyone you fail to convince is a likely criminal.

That's not true. They could be indifferent, or impartial.

Can a society function with 49% criminals?  Probably not.

In the context of the U.S. two-party system, how would that apply?

Citing "papers" IS AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

I haven't shifted-the-burden-of-proof-to-you because, I haven't asked you to PROVE anything.

Please don't get hysterical.

Consulting a laboratory is a practical approach. 

Citing "papers" IS AN ARGUMENT FROM AUTHORITY.

Citing papers is supporting your claims.

Saying essentially go ask scientists and implying you would be right is an argument from authority.

I haven't shifted-the-burden-of-proof-to-you because, I haven't asked you to PROVE anything.

You serious? I asked a question. You gave answer an by saying go ask someone else and implying they would agree with me. You shifted the burden to proof to me to support or not support your claims depending on the results.

Please don't get hysterical.

I am serious. Do you have a study or am I going to go to a scientist to prove your claims to be correct or wrong?

Consulting a laboratory is a practical approach. 

Yes but do you think that is a reasonable request to me? I asked you a question and you said go to a lab and find out. 

Do you have a study or am I going to go to a scientist to prove your claims to be correct or wrong?

Except for the fact that once an infant is born and granted a birth certificate, they are NOT 100% physically dependent on their host organism.

That simple fact changes them from a parasite into an semi-autonomous being, no longer part-of-the-mother's-body.

Why do you believe genes are more important than nutrition?

This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.

This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.

If you're curious about my intentions, feel free to ask.

Parents have historically had the option to release custody of their children.

Some societies will even remove children by force if they determine the parent and or guardian is unfit.

For example, [LINK]

Christian.

We want land and these savages have the land we want, so we will kill them until they do what we say, and then we'll kill them some more just to show them whose the boss.

You don't have a functioning society if you don't have enough bio-diversity to sustain human life.

What you have in your example is a gang.

Gangster ethics are another animal altogether.

She was clearly unable to protect her own rights.

If you can't convince your tribe to follow you, then the unconvinced will either be left behind, will become free-riders, or will challenge you when the opportunity arises.

The open-secret is that there is virtually zero-difference between the "two-parties".

More than 49% still have tacit faith in the legal system.

At a minimum they believe that if they step-out-of-bounds they will be severely punished.

That at least motivates them to keep their heads down for the most part.

Ideally we can persuade each other with logic.

When logic fails, we use enticements (which creates [de facto] mercenaries).

When enticement fails, we use fear-mongering (which creates [de facto] cowards).

When fear-mongering fails, we use credible threats of violence (which creates [de facto] slaves).

Its physical dependence is analogous to the dependence an infant has on its mother's resources, time, and labor. She has a right to her body, but she doesn't have a right to the aforestated? How do you rationalize that?

This is an example of the dime-store-psychoanalysis fallacy.

No such fallacy is logically recognizable.

Are you asking for a study that proves that some cells are human and some aren't and that a laboratory can tell the difference?

Once the baby is born, the mother can choose at any time to put it up for adoption.

I don't understand your confusion.

An appeal to motivation (amateur psychology) is a type of ad hominem attack.

An appeal to motivation (amateur psychology) is a type of ad hominem attack.

It's not an appeal to motive because I'm not qualifying your arguments using your motives.

I'm not stating, for example, that you're wrong because you're copping out;

I'd be saying that you're inconsistent; and you're copping out.

Mention of your intentions are merely supplemental; not informative.

Once the baby is born, the mother can choose at any time to put it up for adoption.

I don't understand your confusion.

Yes by putting it up for adoption she ensure its custody to someone else, on whom the fetus depends for time, labor, and resources.

What if she just left it outside somewhere, or in her home without paying attention to its needs? That would be illegal because the mother is obligated to either provide sustenance or ensure that another custodian provides sustenance.

No such obligations are present or recognized between a mother and her zygote/embryo/fetus/unborn child. And that's inconsistent.

Are you asking for a study that proves that some cells are human and some aren't and that a laboratory can tell the difference?

I am asking for you to give me a study that scientists (or other standard) have stated a thing is human cells.

Because AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH IT BECOMES A CITIZEN WITH FULL HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

Because AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH IT BECOMES A CITIZEN WITH FULL HUMAN RIGHTS AND PROTECTION OF THE LAW.

And this is merely arbitrary with no justification other than the law's being the law.