Rights v Rights

[Captain Adverse]

You confuse instinct with rights.

No I don't. Fight or flight may be considered instinctual; but what about negotiation, self-sacrifice, abject surrender, passive resistance, and other options exercised when threatened?

We see people making these and other conscious choices when confronted with violence all the time.

 

[prometeus]

Fight or flight may be considered instinctual; but what about negotiation, self-sacrifice, abject surrender, passive resistance, and other options exercised when threatened?

They are all existent as you describe them, but not relevant to rights.

We see people making these and other conscious choices when confronted with violence all the time.

Yes and many others but they in no way are a result of rights or proof of them. We also make decisions to kill people, let people die or do nothing to prevent deaths and those decision also do not support or are proof of rights.

 

[Henrin]

Forgive me but that response has no relevance to the point I made.

Look again. The first clause is "If the argument is (personhood begins) at conception..."

What is the logical (scientific/rational?) argument showing that it does? How does one argue that a developing group of cells at conception is the equivalent of a fully developed human being?

It's proven that life begins at conception. If conception is the beginning of the life cycle is that somehow not a rational argument to propose that we should protect human life at that point forward?

We also know the illogical (emotional/spiritual?) argument: That deity infuses the fetus with the human spirit at conception.

But if that is really true? Then that deity is either the greatest mass-murderer in all of human history, or extraordinarily wasteful of human souls...if it allows 75% of "humans" to die of "natural" miscarriages before ever being born into the world. How then hold humans to task when they elect artificial miscarriages?

Ummm...ok? Death can occur at any point in our lives. Does the fact that a child can die somehow make children not worth protecting? Does the fact that teenagers can die somehow make it so teenagers aren't worth protecting? What about adults of any age that can die? Are adults not worth protecting because they can die? What is it about the fact that the unborn can die that makes it not worthy of protection? If the argument is that god kills the unborn and therefore the argument for protection is bunk then frankly the argument for protecting human life at any age is bunk.

Oh and btw, we are all just groups of cells.

 

[prometeus]

It's proven that life begins at conception.

Not in dispute.

If conception is the beginning of the life cycle is that somehow not a rational argument to propose that we should protect human life at that point forward?

Why? On what do you base that?

 

[Removable Mind]

It's proven that life begins at conception. If conception is the beginning of the life cycle is that somehow not a rational argument to propose that we should protect human life at that point forward?

Ummm...ok? Death can occur at any point in our lives. Does the fact that a child can die somehow make the children not worth protecting? Does the fact that teenagers can die somehow make it so teenagers aren't worth protecting? What about adults of any age that can die? Are adults not worth protecting because they can die What is it about the fact that the unborn can die that makes it not worthy of protection?

Oh and btw, we are all just groups of cells.

More red herrings and false equivalencies. Women who conceive decide at what point the conception they carry in their body will move forward.

SO WHAT that life begins at conception? Because a cycle of life begins...doesn't mean the beginning of some life (human or otherwise) has the right to make the entity that created it ensure that it survives past gestation. That's sheer nonsense.

We have eons of evidence that births win over death throughout the history of humanity. And despite all of the abortions ever performed. And you can't measure the social value of something that's never existed.

If women chose to stop proliferating the species today...too frickin bad. But I would support that choice.

Believing that the yet to be born is so much more important than the born won't buy you a 5 cent cup of coffee.

 

[year2late]

How do you give the pregnant woman the right to privacy without taking away the unborn human's right to live? That's the point of the post. If both have rights, and I don't see why they wouldn't, how else can we determine who's rights take precedence?

Does the zygote, embryo or fetus have a right to live through pregnancy?

But again, this is not just about privacy. It can be about her right to seek medical care in her own best interest.

If you remember my scenario, many (if not most) of the usual pro-life posters would insist that I stay pregnant unless my own death was immanent. At that point it could be too late to save my kidneys or my life. Essentially it is about many on the right wanting the fetus to have more rights than the pregnant woman.

If a man had a medical issue that could be quickly solved by removing something from his body....of course it is not an issue. If pro-lifers have their way the woman would lose the ability to control her own health issues in the best possible way for her needs.

 

[year2late]

Out of curiosity... I assume your child lived. I'm very sorry that you had a difficult pregnancy, truly. Forget all the ifs and buts for a moment, and look at your child. Knowing now what you didn't know then, would you NOW choose differently for THAT pregnancy? Would you now choose to have not experienced your health issues at the expense of your child's life?

The thing about pro-choice is that you can choose no abortion as well.

My son is 22 now.

I was in a financial position (kind of) to be off work that long. We had no other children. Yes, that is a consideration. If I was in a difficult financial situation - barely making ends meet - that 6 months off could have left us homeless. If we already had kids, how would that have worked for them?

As it was, it took years for me to work off the debt that was amassed during my time off. At least I had the luxury of going into debt that allowed me to keep my good (not Medicaid) health care insurance - insurance that allowed me to see the best doctors to help me have a safe medical outcome.

 

[FutureIncoming]

I hate posting in this forum because there is so much vitriol on this subject. But I wanted to break down the topic to the core issue. The rights of the pregnant as compared to the rights of the conceived.

You seem to be making the unwarranted assumption that the conceived have rights. Why?

natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

Actually, in Nature there is exactly and only one right, a "right to try". There is no such thing as a "right to succeed", however.

On another hand, I'm aware that when someone uses the phrase "natural law" a different topic is getting discussed than the Physical Laws of the Universe. Nevertheless, what you wrote specifically talks about "people". See my signature? The concept of "person" is totally independent of the concept of "human". Therefore it is quite possible for human entities to exist that are not persons (look up "hydatidiform mole"), and it is quite possible for nonhuman entities to exist that are persons (with dolphins being the best-known candidates as of this writing, and True Artificial Intelligences may begin to exist within a couple decades).

Obviously, this isn't a perfect plan. This is the first iteration of my thoughts on this. Discuss.

If persons have rights, and you claim that "the conceived" have rights, then it follows that you think the conceived qualify as persons. What is the basis for that? Please compare it to the basis by which a dolphin or True Artificial Intelligence might get declared to qualify as a person --no Stupid Prejudice allowed! (there is no such thing as "intelligent prejudice")

 

[ksu_aviator]

The DOI is not incorporated in the Constitution.

In fact the idea of natural rights that Thomas Jefferson based the DOI most likely came from John Locke.


The Open Door Web Site : History : John Locke and the "Treatises on Government

The key word is born.


Some of the founding fathers owned slaves so it is understandable that Jefferson changed the wording from born equally free to "created equal " ... He couldn't very well have the slaves thinking they were born free now could he?

The DOI is not in the consitution, but it does address natural rights with a lot of similarity to John Locke. Locke expressed the right to life as:

§. 6. But though this be a state of liberty, yet it is not a state of licence: though man in that state have an uncontroulable liberty to dispose of his person or possessions, yet he has not liberty to destroy himself, or so much as any creature in his possession, but where some nobler use than its bare preservation calls for it. The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions: for men being all the workmanship of one omnipotent, and infinitely wise maker; all the servants of one sovereign master, sent into the world by his order, and about his business; they are his property, whose workmanship they are, made to last during his, not one another’s pleasure: and being furnished with like faculties, sharing all in one community of nature, there cannot be supposed any such subordination among us, that may authorize us to destroy one another, as if we were made for one another’s uses, as the inferior ranks of creatures are for our’s. Every one, as he is bound to preserve himself, and not to quit his station wilfully, so by the like reason, when his own preservation comes not in competition, ought he, as much as he can, to preserve the rest of mankind, and may not, unless it be to do justice on an offender, take away, or impair the life, or what tends to the preservation of the life, the liberty, health, limb, or goods of another.

§. 7. And that all men may be restrained from invading others rights, and from doing hurt to one another, and the law of nature be observed, which willeth the peace and preservation of all mankind, the execution of the law of nature is, in that state, put into every man’s hands, whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation: for the law of nature would, as all other laws that concern men in this world, be in vain, if there were no body that in the state of nature had a power to execute that law, and thereby preserve the innocent and restrain offenders. And if any one in the state of nature may punish another for any evil he has [199] done, every one may do so: for in that state of perfect equality, where naturally there is no superiority or jurisdiction of one over another, what any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/497

Notice he says "in this world" not born of his world. He does not distinguish between born and conceived. But, if you exist you have rights. The Constitution address all rights with the Tenth amendment.

Thomas Jefferson had his own words to express on slavery:

"There is nothing I would not sacrifice to a practicable plan of abolishing every vestige of this moral and political depravity." - Thomas Jefferson 1814

“Nobody wishes more than I do to see such proofs as you exhibit, that nature has given to our black brethren, talents equal to those of the other colors of men, and that the appearance of a want of them is owing merely to the degraded condition of their existence. ” - Thomas Jefferson, 1791

So your premise is flawed. In his day, Jefferson was a leftist radical. By today's standards, he's a right wing radical.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If you think my post was hyperbole, then you have an odd sense of the term.

Your last thought was a classic example of hyperbole.

You provide no logical argument, so point one was not addressed by your reply.

May I ask if it is possible for me to make an argument that you consider logical but does not agree with you? Because I get the feeling you think we all have to think like you or we are wrong.

You go for point two (of course) with the infusion of spirit theory at conception.

I most definitely went with the logical argument. The fact you feel you have to mischaracterize my statement is very telling. The group of cells, no matter how small, are a human being. They are a human being in the very early stages, but they are the whole of the being. Your examples fail to compare in that they are not the whole of the being.

However, you conflate terms. Yes, a group of cells developing in the womb are human cells... as are any group of human skin cells, human liver cells, and human brain cells. Yet none of them are human beings.

Human Beings are created equal, Men and Women. Human cells are just that...cells.

There is a difference between whole and parts. At that stage of development, the human is a group of cells, but that group of cells are the entire human. Your examples are parts of a human at a much more mature stage.

 

[Captain Adverse]

I most definitely went with the logical argument. The fact you feel you have to mischaracterize my statement is very telling. The group of cells, no matter how small, are a human being. They are a human being in the very early stages, but they are the whole of the being. Your examples fail to compare in that they are not the whole of the being.

Your argument is NOT logical. It is based on false premises, primarily that merely because cells are human there is some sort of equivalency with actual People that they must share the same rights.

My comparison to skin cells, etc. was apt, because like the developing human cells you wish to grant humanity, none of them can survive outside the human body.

Moreover, skin cells, liver cells, etc., AND fetal cells during the initial period of development share another characteristic; none of them are sentient.

Finally, they are only potentially the "whole of the being." That's exactly why there are so many natural miscarriages. At any point in the early development those cells can deteriorate, lethally mutate, or simply fail.

There is a difference between whole and parts. At that stage of development, the human is a group of cells, but that group of cells are the entire human. Your examples are parts of a human at a much more mature stage.

No, that is sophistry. Like saying a handful of sand is a brandy-glass because it can be made into one.

At that stage in development they are a group of human cells striving to develop into a human being. They are not yet a human being.

And here we are proving my first point. Arguing about when the developing cells becomes a person.

You simply exemplify my original post. :coffeepap:

 

[ksu_aviator]

You seem to be making the unwarranted assumption that the conceived have rights. Why?

Because they do. It is being discussed in other branches of this thread.

Actually, in Nature there is exactly and only one right, a "right to try". There is no such thing as a "right to succeed", however.

Most people would disagree with your assessment.

On another hand, I'm aware that when someone uses the phrase "natural law" a different topic is getting discussed than the Physical Laws of the Universe. Nevertheless, what you wrote specifically talks about "people". See my signature? The concept of "person" is totally independent of the concept of "human". Therefore it is quite possible for human entities to exist that are not persons (look up "hydatidiform mole"), and it is quite possible for nonhuman entities to exist that are persons (with dolphins being the best-known candidates as of this writing, and True Artificial Intelligences may begin to exist within a couple decades).

Natural Law is not the same as Laws of Nature. Don't try to confuse the topic by excluding valid definitions and usage. It was a thinly veiled attempt to seem smart. It failed.

I didn't need to look up Hydatidiform mole. But I did laugh at the idea that you thought that was a valid argument given my thesis in the OP. Did you read the whole thing?

Now, your definition of person is blatantly wrong. A person is a human. Person | Definition of Person by Merriam-Webster

It is not possible for a dolphin or artificial intelligence or anything other than a human being to be a person. It is also illogical to say a human is not a person or a person is not a human. The two are one and the same. This trend of proclaiming a person is the only person capable of achieving rights is patently prejudiced. The stage of development does not determine worth or rights. But, that is the goal of redefining person to mean something other than human. If the blob of cells that is the conceived human is worth something, the argument that it can be thrown away loses validity. The reality that a person and a human cannot be separated and that you've already assigned rights to a person means you've defeated your own argument.

If persons have rights, and you claim that "the conceived" have rights, then it follows that you think the conceived qualify as persons. What is the basis for that? Please compare it to the basis by which a dolphin or True Artificial Intelligence might get declared to qualify as a person --no Stupid Prejudice allowed! (there is no such thing as "intelligent prejudice")

See above. There is no need to compare to a dolphin or AI. They are not analogous.

 

[ksu_aviator]

You argument is NOT logical. It is based on false premises, primarily that merely because cells are human there is some sort of equivalency with actual People that they must share the same rights.

My comparison to skin cells, etc. was apt, because like the developing human cells you wish to grant humanity, none of them can survive outside the human body.

Moreover, skin cells, liver cells, etc., AND fetal cells during the initial period of development share another characteristic; none of them are sentient.

Finally, they are only potentially the "whole of being." That's exactly why there are so many natural miscarriages. At any point in the early development those cells can deteriorate, lethally mutate, or simply fail.



No, that is sophistry. Like saying a handful of sand is a brandy-glass because it can be made into one.

At that stage in development they are a group of human cells striving to develop into a human. They are not yet a human being.

And here we are proving my first point. Arguing about at when the developing cells becomes a person.

You simply exemplify my original post. :coffeepap:

Try as you might, you are dancing around the truth. You cannot deny that the group of cells (as you call it) is the whole human. Whether that whole human has a long or short life or is dependent or not dependent is not material to the application of natural rights. So, unless you can prove that the group of cells will some day develop into something other than a human, your hypothesis that the cells are not human is bunk. The natural progression is to mature human. If it ends as a human it must start as a human.

 

[TheGoverness]

Try as you might, you are dancing around the truth. You cannot deny that the group of cells (as you call it) is the whole human. Whether that whole human has a long or short life or is dependent or not dependent is not material to the application of natural rights. So, unless you can prove that the group of cells will some day develop into something other than a human, your hypothesis that the cells are not human is bunk. The natural progression is to mature human. If it ends as a human it must start as a human.

Those cells aren't a human YET. But eventually they will develop into a fully functional human being.

 

[Henrin]

Those cells aren't a human YET. But eventually they will develop into a fully functional human being.

Science has already answered this question. The cells in which you talk about are the body of the unborn, which is currently in a stage of human life.

 

[TheGoverness]

Science has already answered this question. The cells in which you talk about are the body of the unborn, which is currently in a stage of human life.

I already know that. It is in the early stage of a developing human life. So what?

 

[Henrin]

I already know that. It is in the early stage of a developing human life. So what?

You clearly didn't know that or you wouldn't have said it isn't a human yet.

 

[Captain Adverse]

Try as you might, you are dancing around the truth. You cannot deny that the group of cells (as you call it) is the whole human. Whether that whole human has a long or short life or is dependent or not dependent is not material to the application of natural rights.

And yet, I just did it.

If the cells were the "whole human" at conception, then they would be immune to that list of miscarriage causes, completely survivable outside the womb, and sentient. They merely contain the building blocks for the potential of a human being. Just as grains of sand can be shaped into a brandy-glass under the proper conditions, it simply remains sand until those conditions ensue.

You are the one equating human cells with human beings at conception. Your argument has no logical merit.

EDIT: just saw this issue:

So, unless you can prove that the group of cells will some day develop into something other than a human, your hypothesis that the cells are not human is bunk. The natural progression is to mature human. If it ends as a human it must start as a human.

Whoa! Ever heard of evolution?

 

[TheGoverness]

You clearly didn't know that or you wouldn't have said it isn't a human yet.

It's not a fully-functional human being that has the ability to survive on it's own. That's what I should've said.

 

[Henrin]

It's not a fully-functional human being that has the ability to survive on it's own. That's what I should've said.

Why would you hold one stage of human life to the capability expectations of another stage of human life?

 

[TheGoverness]

Why would you hold one stage of human life to the capability expectations of another stage of human life?

I don't expect a fetus to be a fully-functional (Independent) human being.

 

[Henrin]

I don't expect a fetus to be a fully-functional human being.

It is fully functional for the stage it is in. It is also exactly what you're doing. You're looking at the capabilities of human beings after they are born and then declaring the unborn as somehow not worthy due to the fact that it lacks the capabilities you have decided on.

 

[Bodi]

It's proven that life begins at conception. If conception is the beginning of the life cycle is that somehow not a rational argument to propose that we should protect human life at that point forward?

No. It is only rational if you can show the value of that life. Being alive doesn't mean much by itself.

 

[Bodi]

I don't expect a fetus to be a fully-functional human being.

Why wouldn't you expect that?

 

[Henrin]

No. It is only rational if you can show the value of that life. Being alive doesn't mean much by itself.

Value is subjective and not a subject science speaks towards.