Rights v Rights

[FutureIncoming]

Actually, I did make the positive claim and posted a link to an article about it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_development_(biology)
I even quoted the post above so you can find it easily.

Thanks, but that's not the same positive claim as the one I was talking about. But before getting to that, did you notice the last sentence of the Wikipedia quote?

A nearly identical process occurs in other species.

Almost certainly other mammalian species are being referred-to.

Now regarding the positive claim, let's start with this that you wrote in #127:

Finally, I think the burden of proof is on you with regards to your assertion that unborn humans are nothing more than animals. I've never heard of any scientific evidence to support that.

"the unborn are nothing more than animals" is a negative claim, because the positive claim would be, "the unborn are more than animals", see? Neither of us has heard of any scientific evidence to support the negative claim, and I certainly haven't heard of any scientific evidence to support the positive claim. Which is why I wrote this in #133:

And in this case the positive statement is very clear: "unborn humans are more than mere-animal entities". YOU (including any other abortion opponents who agree with that positive statement) need to provide the proof! And so far none of you have ever succeeded in doing that!

I mentioned that last sentence in the Wikipedia quote specifically to reinforce the observation that existing scientific data declares unborn humans to be equivalent to other unborn mammals. There is no "more than animal-ness" to the unborn human than there is more-than-animalness to, say, the unborn cougar (adults have body weights similar to humans). So, again, if you want to claim that unborn humans are more than just another variety of animal, please provide some supporting evidence!

 

[ksu_aviator]

Thanks, but that's not the same positive claim as the one I was talking about. But before getting to that, did you notice the last sentence of the Wikipedia quote?

Almost certainly other mammalian species are being referred-to.

Now regarding the positive claim, let's start with this that you wrote in #127:

"the unborn are nothing more than animals" is a negative claim, because the positive claim would be, "the unborn are more than animals", see? Neither of us has heard of any scientific evidence to support the negative claim, and I certainly haven't heard of any scientific evidence to support the positive claim. Which is why I wrote this in #133:


I mentioned that last sentence in the Wikipedia quote specifically to reinforce the observation that existing scientific data declares unborn humans to be equivalent to other unborn mammals. There is no "more than animal-ness" to the unborn human than there is more-than-animalness to, say, the unborn cougar (adults have body weights similar to humans). So, again, if you want to claim that unborn humans are more than just another variety of animal, please provide some supporting evidence!

LMAO...you've really twisted yourself in knots trying to make that claim. Similar process does not create an equivalency. You wanted me to prove that a fertilized human egg is not an animal and I did. It is a human.

 

[RAMOSS]

LMAO...you've really twisted yourself in knots trying to make that claim. Similar process does not create an equivalency. You wanted me to prove that a fertilized human egg is not an animal and I did. It is a human.

Humans are a type of animal from a biological point of view. If you think that a fertilized human egg is not an animal, you are sadly mistaken.

 

[FutureIncoming]

LMAO...you've really twisted yourself in knots trying to make that claim. Similar process does not create an equivalency. You wanted me to prove that a fertilized human egg is not an animal and I did. It is a human.

WHAT A STUPID LIE! I asked you to prove that an unborn human is MORE than an animal, not to prove it is not an animal. Plus, humans ARE animals, a fact so widely known a student can successfully correct a teacher on that subject.

However, WE (as in you and I and many other humans), consider ourselves to be more than ONLY animals, and use the word "persons" to encompass that distinction. Meanwhile, because personhood is a completely independent concept from human-ness, it is both possible for non-human entities to exist that are also persons, more than ONLY animals --and it is possible for human entities to exist that are, indeed, only animals, nonpersons like hydatidiform moles and the brain-dead on full life-support, waiting to be identified as brain-dead.

Until brain-death is verified, the assumption is that the person might still be alive, since the body is still alive. However, should brain-death be identified, at that point a death certificate is filled out, putting the time of death as the time of brain-death identification, not the actual time of brain-death. There's no telling how long the brain was dead before it was identified as being dead.

The doctors and the scientists AND the lawyers all agree the person is dead, even though the human body is still alive.

(Yet even after being declared a corpse, see Msg#147, and the other message to which it links.)

Here's a Question I posed to you a while back, and as expected when it was posed, you failed to answer it:

if you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical lab, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?

That Question represents one more way of proving that the concept of "person" is separate and distinct from the concept of "human".

And remember all those other definitions of "person" I presented to you in Msg#131?

Which brings us back to the unborn --just because they are human, that does not automatically also make them persons. Remember that in the earliest stages of growth, a brain doesn't even exist (see the "10 weeks" item at this link) --so if brain-death can be associated with loss-of-personhood, then, Logically, lack-of-brain-existence means personhood cannot possibly exist yet. Also, do you not remember the specific distinction between the phrases "a human" and "a human being" that I explained to you back in Msg#84?

So if you want to claim that an unborn human is more than JUST an animal (as in "person"), let's see your evidence!

 

[ksu_aviator]

WHAT A STUPID LIE! I asked you to prove that an unborn human is MORE than an animal, not to prove it is not an animal. Plus, humans ARE animals, a fact so widely known a student can successfully correct a teacher on that subject.

However, WE (as in you and I and many other humans), consider ourselves to be more than ONLY animals, and use the word "persons" to encompass that distinction. Meanwhile, because personhood is a completely independent concept from human-ness, it is both possible for non-human entities to exist that are also persons, more than ONLY animals --and it is possible for human entities to exist that are, indeed, only animals, nonpersons like hydatidiform moles and the brain-dead on full life-support, waiting to be identified as brain-dead.

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!

Can you tell me the difference between animals and humans? Seriously.

 

[Casper]

LMAO...you've really twisted yourself in knots trying to make that claim. Similar process does not create an equivalency. You wanted me to prove that a fertilized human egg is not an animal and I did. It is a human.

It is still not a Person, oh and an egg is only a potential baby, as an egg is not a chicken and egg is not a Person, hence no rights are attached.

 

[Casper]

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!

Can you tell me the difference between animals and humans? Seriously.

In most cases, it is the capability of humans brain to think abstractly, but then again some animals may have the edge on some humans.

 

[Removable Mind]

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!

Can you tell me the difference between animals and humans? Seriously.

Just ignore "science", it's just a conspiracy to mess with people's minds.

Taxonomy is a hierarchical system for classifying and identifying organisms. This system was developed by Swedish scientist Carolus Linnaeus in the 18th century (in the 1700s to you).

Binomial Nomenclature

Linnaeus's taxonomy system has two main features that contribute to its ease of use in naming and grouping organisms. The first is the use of binomial nomenclature. This means that an organism's scientific name is comprised of a combination of two terms. These terms are the genus name and the species or epithet. Both of these terms are italicized and the genus name is also capitalized.

For example, the scientific name for humans is Homo sapiens. The genus name is Homo and the species is sapiens. These terms are unique and no other species can have this same name.

Classification Categories

The second feature of Linnaeus's taxonomy system that simplifies organism classification is the ordering of species into broad categories. The major categories include: Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, and Species.

Taxonomy - Classifying and Identifying Organisms

Oh, sorry, I got lost in the facts, what were you saying about humans not being classified under the "Animal" classification?

 

[FutureIncoming]

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!
Can you tell me the difference between animals and humans? Seriously.

To the extent that a human is also a person, that human can be called "an animal, plus personhood". The "plus" qualifies that human as "more than only an animal" --persons DO tend to consider themselves to be superior to ordinary animals, after all.

In fact, that's one of the reasons abortion opponents prove themselves to be Liars when they call themselves "pro-life". They care nothing about the fact that human overpopulation is causing the extinctions of thousands of entire species of other animals every year; they want to make all that death worse, by insisting that even-more humans get born. If they were honest instead of Liars, they would be willing to admit they suffer from Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, and tell the world that they are only "pro human life", and everything else can die, as far as abortion opponents are concerned.

THAT's how much "superior to mere animals" many people consider themselves to be! Which brings us back to the unborn. Do THEY consider themselves to be superior to ordinary animals? If not, then how can they possibly qualify as persons?

 

[FutureIncoming]

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!
Can you tell me the difference between animals and humans? Seriously.

If what I wrote in #159 wasn't clear enough, there is also this:

if you were visiting a modern well-equipped medical lab, and some madman with a machete cut your head off in an attempt to murder you, but rescuers arrived in time, would you want them to save your headless human body, or save your severed head, to save YOU-the-person?

If you Answered that Question, you might realize that it is also the Answer to your question quoted above.

Regarding our superiority to ordinary animals, there is no reason to go overboard in terms of consequent actions. Too much of any good thing is always a bad thing! (How many valuable medicines can no longer be discovered, because the species having the genes that make them are now extinct?)

 

[FutureIncoming]

LMAO...we are all animals, open season on humans!

While most of my participation in the Overall Abortion Debate is focused on pointing out the huge flaws in anti-abortion arguments, occasionally I devise a pro-choice argument, like this one, which happens to be hugely relevant to what you wrote, quoted above:

(original text here) We know that predators exist by killing other organisms; the killing they do is NECESSARY for the health of ANY ecosystem. So, imagine that we humans were not at the top of the food pyramid, that there were predators accustomed to hunting us down and eating us. Actually, we know that was exactly the Natural situation back in Africa before hominins or pre-hominins invented the first "distance" weapon (see "The Calvin Throwing Hypothesis").

Since those long-ago days, the predators were mostly killed, with many going extinct (like giant cave bears) and others becoming seriously endangered (tigers), as our use of distance weapons improved. In one sense, the human species is in the same situation as wild deer in a forest that has no wolves --massive overpopulation results, and the whole ecosystem suffers. That's why natural predation is necessary!

Since humans have become the top predators on the planet, we can and do replace wolves with respect to deer. And we have wars, describe-able as humans basically preying on other humans. That sort-of worked to keep human population from exploding, until the A-bomb was invented. Then large-scale war became too dangerous, with the result that we have since only had "brush fire" wars, relatively trivial with respect to population growth.

Do you see the Modern Conundrum? The global ecosystem needs fewer humans in the world, in order to stabilize, but humans claim to have "right to life" --and the more they get-along with each other, the more such a claim is actualized (see #103) --while population continues to skyrocket, damaging the ecosystem even more!

Well, how can the Conundrum be resolved? FIRST, by recognizing that we are part of Nature. SECOND, by acknowledging that we need personal interactions with the natural ecology for our own psychological health. THIRD, by recognizing that all species need to avoid having excessive numbers, if an ecosystem is to remain stable. FOURTH, by accepting the fact that there is no such thing as a "right to breed" (it is actually a privilege that must be earned, and all through Nature, when it is not earned, offspring die). FIFTH, by acknowledging that we are the top predators on Earth. SIXTH, by accepting that that position gives us Responsibilities, and among those responsibilities is the importance of recognizing that the only predators that can "take us on" are ourselves. SEVENTH, by acknowledging the facts that unborn humans are mere animal organisms, not persons with right-to-life. EIGHTH, by noticing that abortion qualifies as a legitimate way that humans can prey on humans, since it is about persons versus animals, instead of, as in war, persons versus persons.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Wow, you guys really think you have something here don't you?

It is still not a Person, oh and an egg is only a potential baby, as an egg is not a chicken and egg is not a Person, hence no rights are attached.

In most cases, it is the capability of humans brain to think abstractly, but then again some animals may have the edge on some humans.

You are right about abstract thought, the snarky bit at the end wasn't necessary.

Just ignore "science", it's just a conspiracy to mess with people's minds.


Oh, sorry, I got lost in the facts, what were you saying about humans not being classified under the "Animal" classification?

They are facts, but they aren't contrary to what I said.

To the extent that a human is also a person, that human can be called "an animal, plus personhood". The "plus" qualifies that human as "more than only an animal" --persons DO tend to consider themselves to be superior to ordinary animals, after all.

In fact, that's one of the reasons abortion opponents prove themselves to be Liars when they call themselves "pro-life". They care nothing about the fact that human overpopulation is causing the extinctions of thousands of entire species of other animals every year; they want to make all that death worse, by insisting that even-more humans get born. If they were honest instead of Liars, they would be willing to admit they suffer from Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy, and tell the world that they are only "pro human life", and everything else can die, as far as abortion opponents are concerned.

THAT's how much "superior to mere animals" many people consider themselves to be! Which brings us back to the unborn. Do THEY consider themselves to be superior to ordinary animals? If not, then how can they possibly qualify as persons?

That's a fun strawman. Thought has nothing to do with it, but you tried very hard.

If what I wrote in #159 wasn't clear enough, there is also this:

If you Answered that Question, you might realize that it is also the Answer to your question quoted above.

Regarding our superiority to ordinary animals, there is no reason to go overboard in terms of consequent actions. Too much of any good thing is always a bad thing! (How many valuable medicines can no longer be discovered, because the species having the genes that make them are now extinct?)

The question has nothing to do with the discussion, nor is it analogous to anything that is being discussed. Why waste time going down a path that is fruitless?

While most of my participation in the Overall Abortion Debate is focused on pointing out the huge flaws in anti-abortion arguments, occasionally I devise a pro-choice argument, like this one, which happens to be hugely relevant to what you wrote, quoted above:

Ok, my real response, since you all made the same flawed arguments:

Humans are different from animals in that humans have certain natural rights. Animals don't have rights. They have might makes right. Humans have rights, recognize those rights and enforce those rights through organizational systems, primarily governments. At conception, the cells are uniquely human. Since humans have rights, those cells have rights. They are a human. They need no additional organisms to continue the developmental process (other than the "food" they get from the mother). This line of thought that they are no better than an animal is just disingenuous at best.

 

[AGENT J]

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.

We have a commonly accepted principle in our society that can be summed up colloquially as; your rights end where my rights begin. That principle is well and good when our rights don't intermingle, but when the rights of multiple individuals cross paths and cannot be separated without detriment, it is difficult or impossible to determine who's rights take precedence. In the case of abortion, we have two sets of rights, a woman's right to privacy and an unborn human's right to live. Both are valid. A woman absolutely has the right to keep her medical information between her and her providers (doctors, insurance, etc). However, natural law dictates that all people have certain unalienable rights like life, liberty, and property.

In my opinion, rights should be handled by a hierarchy of rights, then by causation, then by detriment.

The hierarchy would be as follows (from the UN declaration of rights with some modifications.



If an individual causes another individual's rights to become integrated with their own, the rights of the other individual shall take precedence.

If neither the parties involved are equal in the hierarchy of rights and neither caused their rights to become entangled, then the rights of the person that are affected to greatest degree of detriment should take precedence.

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

why do you ignore the womans right to life? why does it not matter?
why do you ignore her current legal and human rights? why do those not matter?

 

[FutureIncoming]

Humans are different from animals in that humans have certain natural rights.

THAT IS A LIE that humans have been telling themselves for thousands of years, simply because they have minds capable of imagining such a thing --while ordinary animals don't have such minds. Did you see the very recent news about a big earthquake in Japan? Do you think Nature cares one whit what humans think of themselves?

In other words, you have stated a positive claim, but have not supported it with one speck of evidence, and in fact there is lots of actually available evidence that the claim is false, nor do humans act like they believe your claim, either.

Animals don't have rights.

AGREED. One of the simplest generic definitions for a "person" is, "any entity able to understand the concept of 'rights', and claim them for self". Since ordinary animals can't/don't, they aren't. Artificial Intelligences will become True Artificial Intelligences when they start claiming rights for themselves --and we expect to need to negotiate with intelligent extraterrestrial entities that claim rights for themselves, too.

They have might makes right.

TRUE, The Law of the Jungle is a direct consequence of the sole actual "right" that exists in Nature --the right to try.

Humans have rights, recognize those rights and enforce those rights through organizational systems, primarily governments.

PARTLY TRUE --but see the above link about human belief. The whole concept of "rights" is an invention, specifically created to help humans get-along with each other better. I've explained this pretty thoroughly in that "#103" link (not a DebatePolitics message) previously posted (and linked again a moment ago). It even offers 3 reasons to oppose infanticide, while still allowing abortions, even though both the unborn and the recently-born are mere-animal entities, according to all the available scientific data.

At conception, the cells are uniquely human.

TRUE.

Since humans have rights,

FALSE. Persons have rights. See the Constitution, which uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once.

those cells have rights.

FALSE. A bad assumption leads to a bad conclusion.

They are a human.

TRUE.

They need no additional organisms to continue the developmental process (other than the "food" they get from the mother).

FALSE; since the mother needs additional organisms to obtain nutrients from the food she eats, the unborn needs those additional organisms in a "by proxy" manner.

This line of thought that they are no better than an animal is just disingenuous at best.

FALSE; it is Measurable Fact. Again, if you want to claim they are more than mere-animal entities, please provide some evidence! Because they most certainly don't understand the concept of "rights", and claim them for themselves!!!

 

[FutureIncoming]

That's a fun strawman.

Your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence.

 

[FutureIncoming]

The question has nothing to do with the discussion,

Your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence. The FACT is, the concept of "human" and the concept of "person" are provably different concepts, and I have presented more than one way of proving it. Nothing you have written in any way shows that the data I presented was flawed. So until you present an actual argument that includes Objectively Verifiable supporting evidence, not just unsupported/worthless claims, nobody need pay any attention to your incessant blathering about human entities automatically always qualifying as persons deserving rights. Remember hydatidiform moles?

 

[Casper]

Wow, you guys really think you have something here don't you?





You are right about abstract thought, the snarky bit at the end wasn't necessary.



They are facts, but they aren't contrary to what I said.



That's a fun strawman. Thought has nothing to do with it, but you tried very hard.



The question has nothing to do with the discussion, nor is it analogous to anything that is being discussed. Why waste time going down a path that is fruitless?



Ok, my real response, since you all made the same flawed arguments:

Humans are different from animals in that humans have certain natural rights. Animals don't have rights. They have might makes right. Humans have rights, recognize those rights and enforce those rights through organizational systems, primarily governments. At conception, the cells are uniquely human. Since humans have rights, those cells have rights. They are a human. They need no additional organisms to continue the developmental process (other than the "food" they get from the mother). This line of thought that they are no better than an animal is just disingenuous at best.

Still waiting for you or any other pro-lifer to prove that a fetus is a Person when they have no brain...................

If a pro-lifer loses their frontal cortex are they considered to be brain dead, will anyone even notice? Enquiring minds want to know.

 

[FutureIncoming]

... you all made the same flawed arguments

And once again your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence.

 

[GEIxBattleRifle]

And once again your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence.

You can't get into any meaningful debate with a pro lifer until they realize that species membership and personhood are completely different concepts.

 

[ksu_aviator]

why do you ignore the womans right to life? why does it not matter?
why do you ignore her current legal and human rights? why do those not matter?

I didn't. I actually talked about that. Did you not read the post?

 

[ksu_aviator]

THAT IS A LIE that humans have been telling themselves for thousands of years, simply because they have minds capable of imagining such a thing --while ordinary animals don't have such minds. Did you see the very recent news about a big earthquake in Japan? Do you think Nature cares one whit what humans think of themselves?

Don't confuse the term Natural Rights with the laws of nature. The two are holly separate concepts. You seem to think they are the same thing. Natural Rights refers only to humans.

In other words, you have stated a positive claim, but have not supported it with one speck of evidence, and in fact there is lots of actually available evidence that the claim is false, nor do humans act like they believe your claim, either.

John Locke | Natural Law, Natural Rights, and American Constitutionalism

If I said the sky was blue, would I have to show you a picture to prove it? This is rudimentary stuff. I assume that anyone that portends to debate rights would know something about Natural Rights and their application to American law.

AGREED. One of the simplest generic definitions for a "person" is, "any entity able to understand the concept of 'rights', and claim them for self". Since ordinary animals can't/don't, they aren't. Artificial Intelligences will become True Artificial Intelligences when they start claiming rights for themselves --and we expect to need to negotiate with intelligent extraterrestrial entities that claim rights for themselves, too.


TRUE, The Law of the Jungle is a direct consequence of the sole actual "right" that exists in Nature --the right to try.


PARTLY TRUE --but see the above link about human belief. The whole concept of "rights" is an invention, specifically created to help humans get-along with each other better. I've explained this pretty thoroughly in that "#103" link (not a DebatePolitics message) previously posted (and linked again a moment ago). It even offers 3 reasons to oppose infanticide, while still allowing abortions, even though both the unborn and the recently-born are mere-animal entities, according to all the available scientific data.

Invention or not, the law codifies natural rights. So your argument is pointless.

TRUE.


FALSE. Persons have rights. See the Constitution, which uses the word "person" throughout, and doesn't use the word "human" even once.

A person and a human are the same thing.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/person
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/person
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/person

All four dictionaries include "A human being" as one of the definitions. So you can't say I used one dictionary or a dictionary that is biased.

FALSE. A bad assumption leads to a bad conclusion.


TRUE.


FALSE; since the mother needs additional organisms to obtain nutrients from the food she eats, the unborn needs those additional organisms in a "by proxy" manner.

I knew you wouldn't understand that concept. An egg needs another organism to develop. Sperm needs another organism to develop. A fertilized egg does not.

FALSE; it is Measurable Fact. Again, if you want to claim they are more than mere-animal entities, please provide some evidence! Because they most certainly don't understand the concept of "rights", and claim them for themselves!!!

Already did and you accepted that above: "AGREED. One of the simplest generic definitions for a "person" is, "any entity able to understand the concept of 'rights', and claim them for self". Since ordinary animals can't/don't, they aren't. Artificial Intelligences will become True Artificial Intelligences when they start claiming rights for themselves"

 

[Removable Mind]

Wow, you guys really think you have something here don't you?

You are right about abstract thought, the snarky bit at the end wasn't necessary.

They are facts, but they aren't contrary to what I said.

That's a fun strawman. Thought has nothing to do with it, but you tried very hard.

The question has nothing to do with the discussion, nor is it analogous to anything that is being discussed. Why waste time going down a path that is fruitless?

Ok, my real response, since you all made the same flawed arguments:

Humans are different from animals in that humans have certain natural rights. Animals don't have rights. They have might makes right. Humans have rights, recognize those rights and enforce those rights through organizational systems, primarily governments. At conception, the cells are uniquely human. Since humans have rights, those cells have rights. They are a human. They need no additional organisms to continue the developmental process (other than the "food" they get from the mother). This line of thought that they are no better than an animal is just disingenuous at best.

What I posted is a clear contradiction to your claims. What I posted has been used by respective scientific disciplines for well over 250 years to classify every living thing on earth, plant or beast.

But carry on with your naive views. They can't be supported. You haven't even offered any real information to back up your claim. All we read is your opinions about humanity superiority over other species. But that doesn't dispute the biological evidence of how all life has common traits, characteristics, and/or attributes - especially those in the animal category.

 

[ksu_aviator]

Your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence.

Your mere claim is totally worthless without evidence. The FACT is, the concept of "human" and the concept of "person" are provably different concepts, and I have presented more than one way of proving it. Nothing you have written in any way shows that the data I presented was flawed. So until you present an actual argument that includes Objectively Verifiable supporting evidence, not just unsupported/worthless claims, nobody need pay any attention to your incessant blathering about human entities automatically always qualifying as persons deserving rights. Remember hydatidiform moles?

There...happy? I proved the sky is blue.

 

[Lursa]

LMAO...you've really twisted yourself in knots trying to make that claim. Similar process does not create an equivalency. You wanted me to prove that a fertilized human egg is not an animal and I did. It is a human.

Are you seriously claiming that humans are not part of the animal kingdom? Humans are primates.

 

[Lursa]

Humans are different from animals in that humans have certain natural rights. Animals don't have rights. They have might makes right. Humans have rights, recognize those rights and enforce those rights through organizational systems, primarily governments. At conception, the cells are uniquely human. Since humans have rights, those cells have rights. They are a human. They need no additional organisms to continue the developmental process (other than the "food" they get from the mother). This line of thought that they are no better than an animal is just disingenuous at best.

What 'natural rights?' That would have to be inherent...so then prove it. If it's biological it should be provable.

And here's the 2nd question? Why would humans be the only animals to have 'natural rights?'

Natural rights is nothing more than an end-run around the religious belief that God made people 'special.' There's nothing 'factual' about it, it's still an appeal to a higher authority. It's a philosophy, certainly it's not founded in science.