-->
@Benjamin
demonstrate god, demonstrate that a god gives people value, that is two claims provide the evidence which supports this.
Abortion and human rights
Posts
Total:
355
-->
@Benjamin
The egg cells have literally existed for years - and the sperm cells die naturally all the time.
I already addressed natural death of sperm cells in my first response:
"the decision to actively and knowingly end the life of gametes should, based on your argument, be considered similarly to abortion. Male masturbation is most certainly and knowingly ending the lives of many sperm cells. You mentioned earlier that periods should not be considered murder, and this is a basis for that view, but it doesn’t cover the whole argument. For that matter, what about the usage of spermicide during sex?"
"this seems more a measure of probability (which is more likely to die on its own if we do nothing) rather than a clear delineation. You seem to be covering for that by arguing that natural deaths aren’t immoral, but by that logic, any unnatural death should be deemed at least potentially immoral. I don’t see how that excludes the deaths of gametes."
When they fuse, it's only a matter of months before a human is born.
Addressed this, too:
"a zygote, embryo or even a fetus will absolutely not continue to develop in the absence of outside influence. We can dismiss the nutrient contributions of the mother, perhaps, but I don’t see how you can dismiss all manner of outside chemical and biological signals that provide essential information to the unborn and activate various processes that would not happen in their absence. The fusion of gametes in an extra step, yes, but I don’t see how that additional step fundamentally alters anything except probability. Just like gamete fusion requires that both gametes be present and active in the body at the same time, the zygote requires a great deal of outside influence. Why does the latter get treated as though it’s functionally independent while the former does not?"
You cannot compare ANY change, nowhere, to conception.
Why not? Again, you're not the first to present this argument to me, but as you seem wholly willing to explain your position in more detail, I'd like to know where this stance is coming from. I agree that conception is unique in the development process, but so is literally every other stage in development. Why are other unique elements of development, or even unique elements pre- and mid-fusion, not comparable to conception in any way?
So when does a cell become a human? You have not provided any time when a human can objectively be confirmed as being so.
I don't see why I have to do that. I'm not defending a specific stance on abortion, and I started off my first response to you by pointing out that I'm split when it comes to my moral stance on the issue of abortion. Nonetheless, I've already hinted at my stance before, so I'll just say it outright: I don't think we can designate a specific point at which someone becomes a human being. We can justify selecting one however we want, but regardless of the choice, it's arbitrary and based on our determination of what traits are most inherent to a human being. I find that thinking to be flawed. In a similar manner, defining when life begins is always going to be somewhat arbitrary. We assign specific traits to life, and when something achieves those traits, we consider it life. How do we assess something that has fewer traits, or traits that substitute for others we have considered to be essential for life? I don't think we can make a solid dividing line. I think we always have to be open to the possibility that we are wrong in our estimation. Maybe that's the scientist in me, but it is how I think about these things.
Insemination is a qualitative change. Sex is a qualitative change. A beating heart is a qualitative change. A working nervous system is a qualitative change. Independent viability is a qualitative changeI disagree. Are you telling me that a fetus is some % human? Doesn't it then deserve some % of human rights? Like, maybe only the first - right to life?
Now you're just misrepresenting my argument. I've never argued that there is a stage at which you become some % human, nor have I argued that there is any stage at which you achieve humanity, or some part thereof. I think the moral bases for assigning humanity to any stage of development are fraught. But you say you disagree with the above statement, yet you haven't actually responded to it. Your point was that conception is a qualitative change, setting it apart from quantitative changes and thereby validating it. Yet, here I've given you examples of other qualitative changes. Why are these not sufficient to establish a human being, while conception is?
I will like to present my argument again:
- A human has human rights
- Every human has unique DNA
- Therefore, any cell or group of cells with distinct DNA are, OBJECTIVELY, a human.
Yes, this is actually the argument you said you weren't going to give in response to my first post. Interesting that you're backtracking on that now. Distinct DNA is an interesting way to view humanity, but let's start with some obvious counters to this. An identical twin has identical DNA with his/her brother/sister. They do not have distinct DNA. A clone does not have distinct DNA, by definition. For that matter, this definition would include a lot of things that you wouldn't consider to be humans. HeLa cells the world over have modified genomes, whether purposefully or just as a result of adaptation to tissue culture. Are they all individual humans by virtue of having unique DNA? If I grow an organ in the lab, I am creating a group of cells that may be entirely distinct from the donor cells, particularly in cases like xenotransplantation where an animal grows a human organ for donation. Is that organ a human? Is the animal? Finally, let's say I have the ability to genetically engineer a human from an embryo. I can add or remove an awful lot if I choose to do so. How much do I have to modify the human genome by before you would call it a non-human? Does it have to match 99.9% with other humans? 99.8%? 99.5%? 99%? What objective measure would you use to determine that?
So unless human rights are to be "measured" based on each humans traits, abortion is just as bad as killing a grown-up.
...You do realize that DNA is a human trait, correct? It's shared among all humans, but it's not the only factor that is. Why is DNA the end-all-be-all? What makes it the ultimate trait?
Human rights were not founded upon naturalism but rather theism. That's why this question is so prevalent. It's hard to transfer ideas between contradictory worldviews,
I'd contend that human rights aren't necessarily founded in theism, but that's a different story. I'd rather stay focused on the scientific aspect rather than the origins of human rights.
-->
@Theweakeredge
As legal personality is a prerequisite to legal capacity (the ability of any legal person to amend (enter into, transfer, etc.) rights and obligations), it is a prerequisite for an international organization to be able to sign international treaties in its own name. [LINK]
Animal kingdom[edit]
In court cases regarding animals, the animals have the status of "legal person" and humans have the legal duty to act as "loco parentis" towards animals welfare like a parent has towards the minor children. A court while deciding the "Animal Welfare Board of India vs Nagaraja" case in 2014 mandated that animals are also entitled to the fundamental right to freedom[23] enshrined in the Article 21 of Constitution of India i.e. right to life, personal liberty and the right to die with dignity (passive euthanasia). In another case, a court in Uttarakhand state mandated that animals have the same rights as humans. In another case of cow-smuggling, the Punjab and Haryana High Court mandated that "entire animal kingdom including avian and aquatic" species has a "distinct legal persona with corresponding rights, duties, and liabilities of a living person" and humans are "loco parentis" while laying out the norms for animal welfare, veterinary treatment, fodder and shelter, e.g. animal drawn carriages must not have more than four humans, and load carrying animals must not be loaded beyond the specified limits and those limits must be halved when animals have to carry the load up a slope.[22]
See also: Hindu law
In court cases regarding religious entities, the deity (deity or god is a supernatural being considered divine or sacred) is also a "legal person" who can engage in legal cases through "trustees" or "managing board in charge of the temple". Supreme Court of India (SC), while deciding Ayodhya case of Ram Janmabhoomi, decided in 2010 that the deity Rama in the specific temple was a "legal entity" entitled to be represented by own lawyer appointed by the trustees acting on behalf of the deity. Similarly, in 2018 SC decided that the deity Ayyappan is a "legal person" with "the right to privacy" in the court case regarding the entry of women to Sabarimala shrine of Lord Ayyapan.[22]
Shebaitship[edit]
Under the Indian law, the "shebaitship" is the property owned by the deity or idol as a "legal person". Humans appointed to act on behalf of deity are called the "shebait". A shebait acts as the guardian or custodian of deity to protect the right of deity and fulfill the legal duties of the deity. Shebait is similar to a trustee in case the deity or temple does have a legally registered trust or entity. Under the Hindu Law property gifted or offered as rituals or donations, etc absolutely belongs to the deity and not to the shebait. Case example are "Profulla Chrone Requitte vs Satya Chorone Requitte, AIR 1979 SC 1682 (1686): (1979) 3 SCC 409: (1979) 3 SCR 431. (ii)" and "Shambhu Charan Shukla vs Thakur Ladli Radha Chandra Madan Gopalji Maharaj, AIR 1985 SC 905 (909): (1985) 2 SCC 524: (1985) 3 SCR 372".[24]
Natural entities such as rivers[edit]
In court cases regarding natural entities, the Uttarakhand High Court, mandated that the river Ganges and Yamuna as well as all water bodies are "living entities" i.e. "legal person" and appointed three humans as trustees to protect the rights of rivers against the pollution caused by the humans, e.g. "pilgrims's bathing rituals".[22] [LINK]
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't care about legal definitions here, I care about moral weight and worth - they are distinct
-->
@Theweakeredge
I don't care about legal definitions here, I care about moral weight and worth - they are distinct
Ok, but let's say for the sake of argument, that a blastocyst is considered a "legal person".
The only legal advocate for that blastocyst would be the mother.
And (IFF) the mother decides to deport the blastocyst (THEN) no other "legal person" would have "standing" to interfere
Standing is the ability of a party to bring a lawsuit in court based upon their stake in the outcome. A party seeking to demonstrate standing must be able to show the court sufficient connection to and harm from the law or action challenged. Otherwise, the court will rule that you "lack standing" to bring the suit and dismiss your case. [LINK]
-->
@Theweakeredge
I care about moral weight and worth
Are you referring to your own personal "moral intuition"?
-->
@3RU7AL
Being "comprised of cells that contain human DNA" does not make something "a human".Cancerous tumors are "comprised of cells that contain human DNA" and this does not make cancerous tumors "a human".
Yes, but zygotes aren't tumors any more than we are chimps; human development begins at fertilization, and my mentioning this has less to do with the presence and the extent to which one comprises particular DNA, and more to do with the divisions we which we arbitrate to create distinctions between "us" and other species of animals and masses of cells. Thus my mention that zygotes/embryos/fetuses are human by definition.
-->
@Athias
I agree that DNA is not a "good" quantifier of "a human".
Are you suggesting a qualitative definition of "a human" has "superior" utility?
-->
@3RU7AL
I agree that DNA is not a "good" quantifier of "a human".Are you suggesting a qualitative definition of "a human" has "superior" utility?
As it concerns the nature of "rights" and moral analysis, yes. That is to say, the "human" in "human rights" encompasses more than just one's genetic constitution--if this is even considered at all.
-->
@Athias
As it concerns the nature of "rights" and moral analysis, yes. That is to say, the "human" in "human rights" encompasses more than just one's genetic constitution--if this is even considered at all.
So, you'd perhaps consider a "transhumanist" or perhaps a "computer intelligence" to be "human"?
-->
@Athias
Daniel Dennett and Joseph Fletcher are among many who specify that intelligence is a key component of defining human persons. Although definitions vary, intelligence may include but is not limited to the ability to create memories, attain or retain knowledge, use logic, employ abstract thought, and communicate. In his “Conditions of Personhood” essay, Dennett requires humans to have a certain level of intelligence. Without it or without a “sufficient” level of intelligence, a human being lacks personhood, and he argues thus that a fetus is not a person. Fletcher also argued for the criterion of intelligence in describing “humanhood” among his personhood criteria. In fact, he explicitly states exact, albeit arbitrary, intelligence quotient scores he believes necessary for personhood . And no, I am not going to comment about Trump voters and personhood.
-->
@3RU7AL
So, you'd perhaps consider a "transhumanist" or perhaps a "computer intelligence" to be "human"?
Like the concepts explored in "Ghost in the Shell" and "Ex Machina"? If it allows them to either attain or sustain moral agency, then they'd fall within the framework of any moral analysis; thus, afforded rights. But I, myself, wouldn't argue that humans have rights by virtue of being human. Babies don't have rights; and children are subjected to the authority of their parents, who themselves are legal proxies of the State.
-->
@whiteflame
I am tired of this entire debate.
It is becoming exhausting with all the points and opinions. I think I want to start over in a new, private forum.
There we can discuss without constant interruptions - and also start over with a fresh groundwork.
-->
@FLRW
Daniel Dennett and Joseph Fletcher are among many who specify that intelligence is a key component of defining human persons. Although definitions vary, intelligence may include but is not limited to the ability to create memories, attain or retain knowledge, use logic, employ abstract thought, and communicate. In his “Conditions of Personhood” essay, Dennett requires humans to have a certain level of intelligence. Without it or without a “sufficient” level of intelligence, a human being lacks personhood, and he argues thus that a fetus is not a person. Fletcher also argued for the criterion of intelligence in describing “humanhood” among his personhood criteria. In fact, he explicitly states exact, albeit arbitrary, intelligence quotient scores he believes necessary for personhood . And no, I am not going to comment about Trump voters and personhood.
The issue with this is that it's still no less arbitrary than arguing that life begins at conception. Case in point: if a 40 year old man becomes brain dead but prior to his "brain death" created a will where he would leave a fortune to his children, what rights would he have then? Being brain dead would render him incapable of exhibiting a sufficient level of intelligence, and therefore be characterized as not a "person." Do you honor the will? If you argue that at one point in time, the 40 year old man was capable of exhibiting sufficient intelligence, and created his will during this period, how would that temporal provision be much different than arguing that a zygote/embryo/fetus will at some point develop sufficient intelligence?
Can one assume the 40 year old man's fortune for oneself regardless of his prior wishes in the event of his being brain-dead?
-->
@Athias
So, you'd perhaps consider a "transhumanist" or perhaps a "computer intelligence" to be "human"?Like the concepts explored in "Ghost in the Shell" and "Ex Machina"? If it allows them to either attain or sustain moral agency, then they'd fall within the framework of any moral analysis; thus, afforded rights. But I, myself, wouldn't argue that humans have rights by virtue of being human. Babies don't have rights; and children are subjected to the authority of their parents, who themselves are legal proxies of the State.
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
-->
@Athias
Can one assume the 40 year old man's fortune for himself regardless of his prior wishes in the event of his being brain-dead?
Of course you could.
Unless someone was there to stop you.
-->
@3RU7AL
I'm afraid that rights are mostly granted by mob democracy. A man's right to life and liberty can be taken away by any group larger, better armed and/or better organized than his. The mechanism is and always has been concerned citizens fighting against the status quo for the betterment of the status quo.
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" of rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights. It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods of survival.
-->
@3RU7AL
Of course you could.Unless someone was there to stop you.
"Can" was perhaps used imprudently. Would it be justified within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence?
-->
@Athias
In effect, this is somewhat true. Though, I wouldn't necessarily characterize them as "rights" in this context given that, as you pointed out, they can be taken away. "Legal privileges" would be more apropos. With that said, my arguments will always be in service to the "ideals" or rights. If we conform or concede the ideal in order to be, as I often see in response, "more practical," then there is no point to rights. It's simply contracting with mobsters for temporary periods for survival.
Well stated.
-->
@Athias
Would it be justified within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence?
It depends on how skilled your legal team is.
-->
@3RU7AL
It depends on how skilled your legal team is.
I suppose.
-->
@Athias
within a framework of morals/rights that are informed by a sufficient level of intelligence
In such a framework, the most intelligent person has the most moral/rights.
As this discussion has proven, universal human rights have no basis in reason.
It was based on religion, like the American constitution:
"All men are created equall, and are endowned by ther creator some inalienable rights ..."
Therefore, religion is necessary for accepting universal rights.
So either we must all adhere to religion (at least their ethical claims) or we must remove universal human rights.
-->
@Benjamin
As this discussion has proven, universal human rights have no basis in reason.
The concept of MORALITY is comprised of AXIOMS.
The concept of RELIGION is comprised of AXIOMS.
The concept of MORALITY is comprised of AXIOMS.
No. Just ask Theweakeredge and he can prove using non-axioms that morality is a thing.
-->
@Benjamin
No. Just ask Theweakeredge and he can prove using non-axioms that morality is a thing.
ALL CONCEPTS ARE COMPRISED OF AXIOMS.
ALL CONCEPTS ARE COMPRISED OF AXIOMS.
Yes. But that destroys the weight of your claim.
Of course, human rights are not based on axioms but rather religion - based on religious axioms.
-->
@Benjamin
based on religious axioms
Are the social norms of animals based on "religious axioms"?
For example, apes exhibit the ability to lie for their own personal gain and are punished by the group if they are caught in a lie.
-->
@3RU7AL
Are the social norms of animals based on "religious axioms"?
I am growing tired of your questions.
With all respect sir - I wrote that UNIVERSAL HUMAN RIGHTS are based on religious axioms.
Proof:
- The rights declared by the USA first amendment are based on religion
- No other thing can defend said rights
- Therefore, only religion can support those rights
Feel free to prove how reason can defend universal human rights - or how religion cannot support said rights.
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, good evidence exists for at least functional deception in primates.
Deception can be passive or active. In passive deception, an animal refrains from a particular behavior so others will not detect their presence or actions, for example, hiding facial expressions, or withholding food calls. Although such behavior is ‘passive,’ it may indicate that the animals have awareness that they can manipulate their communicative displays. On the other hand, individuals may also actively mislead or provide false information to others. False alarm calls are a common form of active misleading. Cheney and Seyfarth report a vervet monkey giving an alarm call in the middle of an intergroup encounter (but in the absence of a predator) that stopped the dispute when the combatants fled. Capuchin subordinates use alarm calls to distract more dominant individuals during competitive situations, reducing some of the costs associated with competition for food in the wild. Although these forms of deception function to manipulate others’ behavior, there is no evidence that the intention is to manipulate their psychological states.
Finally, there is some evidence for counterdeception, or individuals taking active countermeasures against a conspecific's deceptive act. For instance, others may learn to avoid the calls of deceptive callers in food or aggressive contexts. In an experimental study involving chimpanzees, one chimpanzee in a group knew the location of hidden food and soon learned to keep the food's location a secret to avoid having it stolen by her ignorant partner. The ignorant chimpanzee then began to follow the knowledgeable chimpanzee, ignoring her attempts at misleading, indicating that he anticipated her attempts at deception. In other experimental procedures, chimpanzees have learned to withhold information – and even provide false information – to competitive human experimenters who do not provide food to the subject in experimental tasks.
Deception can be passive or active. In passive deception, an animal refrains from a particular behavior so others will not detect their presence or actions, for example, hiding facial expressions, or withholding food calls. Although such behavior is ‘passive,’ it may indicate that the animals have awareness that they can manipulate their communicative displays. On the other hand, individuals may also actively mislead or provide false information to others. False alarm calls are a common form of active misleading. Cheney and Seyfarth report a vervet monkey giving an alarm call in the middle of an intergroup encounter (but in the absence of a predator) that stopped the dispute when the combatants fled. Capuchin subordinates use alarm calls to distract more dominant individuals during competitive situations, reducing some of the costs associated with competition for food in the wild. Although these forms of deception function to manipulate others’ behavior, there is no evidence that the intention is to manipulate their psychological states.
Finally, there is some evidence for counterdeception, or individuals taking active countermeasures against a conspecific's deceptive act. For instance, others may learn to avoid the calls of deceptive callers in food or aggressive contexts. In an experimental study involving chimpanzees, one chimpanzee in a group knew the location of hidden food and soon learned to keep the food's location a secret to avoid having it stolen by her ignorant partner. The ignorant chimpanzee then began to follow the knowledgeable chimpanzee, ignoring her attempts at misleading, indicating that he anticipated her attempts at deception. In other experimental procedures, chimpanzees have learned to withhold information – and even provide false information – to competitive human experimenters who do not provide food to the subject in experimental tasks.