Trump wants more nukes: HELL YEAH!!!

Originally posted by DeepThought
I can't help feeling this thread has strayed off topic a little.

I don't think that that any given right depends on one being alive entails that the right to life necessarily has priority over any other given right. There's an is-ought problem going on with that claim. Rape is a crime against self-sovereignty, I think that enough people would regard ...[text shortened]... over the right to self-sovereignty or any other fundamental right requires better justification.

It's definitely strayed WAY off topic haha.

When it comes to that example, many people probably would, but I am not one of them. I'd understand the need to defend oneself, but I wouldn't argue that the use of lethal force in that situation was necessarily morally correct or justified. To argue that would make me inconsistent.

It is my personal belief that because Life is a prerequisite for any rights (for example, we can't discuss a right to privacy for a corpse or the right to free speech for a rock), the Right to Life supersedes them. To support it further, Article 3 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights is the Right to life, preceded by 2 guarantors of all rights set forth in the document which include the provision that all rights be granted to all in equal measure. Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

Originally posted by blaze8492
You're appealing to specific properties that are often associated with consciousness for adult humans, or humans at a particular stage in development. To impose those conditions upon a human who has not reached the requisite stages of development for those conditions to be applicable is hardly scientific, and it is definitely not rigorous. It is not appr ...[text shortened]... allocated, the only reason you have is convenience for the imposition of your opinion on others.

Once again, I am not making a statement about whether zygotes are "human" (they certainly have human DNA, but whether they constitute a "person" is arbitrary). I said repeatedly I find that distinction irrelevant in this discussion.

Zygotes have no consciousness as far as we can tell and that's the only knowledge we can use. Since zygotes don't give a damn about being aborted and no one except perhaps the mother has any kind of emotional connection to the zygote we don't need to take their opinion or feelings into account.

Why that stage? Why not any other stage?

So we have, on the one hand, a lump of cells where no reasonable moral objection to killing it exists (other than violating a wish for a child, should that be the case). On the other hand we have a partially grown human as it leaves the womb. Where do we make the distinction? When consciousness develops. Since this develops gradually one should, ideally, perform the abortion as early as possible (if one is planned) so as to be sure one is not aborting a being that is, even partially, capable of feeling pain or having some primitive form of consciousness. The contraceptive pill and coil basically do this - they induce an abortion far before the fertilized egg has a chance to develop any kind of consciousness. Whether one puts the distinction for allowing abortions at viability, or, say, two weeks prior to viability, is a matter of reasonable debate.

Originally posted by blaze8492
It's definitely strayed WAY off topic haha.

When it comes to that example, many people probably would, but I am not one of them. I'd understand the need to defend oneself, but I wouldn't argue that the use of lethal force in that situation was necessarily morally correct or justified. To argue that would make me inconsistent.

It is my personal beli ...[text shortened]... o all in equal measure. Source: http://www.ohchr.org/EN/UDHR/Documents/UDHR_Translations/eng.pdf

The document does not give priority to the right to life. The document seems to be based on natural rights theory. The first sentence of article I is "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.", and the expectation that one's last remains are treated respectfully is covered by that. I don't think it is clear that one loses one's rights after death, that it is no longer possible to infringe their right to life does not entail that they have lost that right. Although the libel laws no longer apply there is a moral imperative not to speak ill of the dead. Whether one regards it as fundamental or not there is a de facto right that one's last will and testament be fulfilled. So I don't think that you are justified in giving the right to life priority over any given other right without better justification.

Originally posted by blaze8492
You know exactly what I am referring to.

Yes, I do and was not pretending not to. I was pointing out some problems with what you are referring to.

Cloning is completely separate from reproduction, and you know that too.
Cloning is a form of reproduction. If a single celled fertilised egg has rights then why doesn't a cloneable skin cell too? That is what I am getting at. That is something your theory of rights must explain without arbitrary rules.

And identical twins do not share completely the same DNA
Nor do any two cells of your body, as I stated in my post. But they do share DNA that is similar enough that you could consider them to be genetically one organism. You were talking about significant differences between a parent and child. That difference does not exist between identical twins.

Originally posted by DeepThought
The document does not give priority to the right to life. The document seems to be based on natural rights theory. The first sentence of article I is "All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.", and the expectation that one's last remains are treated respectfully is covered by that. I don't think it is clear that one loses one's ...[text shortened]... ed in giving the right to life priority over any given other right without better justification.

It does not explicitly establish an hierarchy, but it is the first right officially named in the document. You can argue that the order of naming means nothing, but you'd be hard pressed to establish that, given the commentaries throughout the process of drafting the document. During the drafting sessions, it was almost universally agreed that the document should proclaim a right to life for "every human being." Only the USSR reserved any right to change the reading (source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/AC.1/SR.2, page 10).

It is reasonably clear by any view of the drafting process, including the draft documents proposed by individual states (the UK stated as it's first right that there should be a "respect for life," and then went on to suggest the abolition of torture) that the Right to Life was paramount. In fact, the logic behind this was that the Second World War had just ended, and Cassin of France stating as an observation: " we are thinking of the right to live and protection of human life. That is not quite as elementary as we see it. In 1933, when
Germany began to violate these very principles, all the countries of the world wond-ered as to whether they had the right of intervention in order to save humanity and to maintain those principles, and they did not intervene. Later we suffered the loss of millions of human beings. Therefore, 1 think it is fundamental that we state that human beings have the right of existence." (source: http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=E/CN.4/AC.1/3/Add.1)

Furthermore, in just about every draft, the Right to Life and other personal liberties are always listed as the first enumerated rights. Always. This leads me to believe that the Right to Life is placed in special significance for the document.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Once again, I am not making a statement about whether zygotes are "human" (they certainly have human DNA, but whether they constitute a "person" is arbitrary). I said repeatedly I find that distinction irrelevant in this discussion.

Zygotes have no consciousness as far as we can tell and that's the only knowledge we can use. Since zygotes don't give ...[text shortened]... abortions at viability, or, say, two weeks prior to viability, is a matter of reasonable debate.

Zygotes have no consciousness based on your definition. Again, you are imposing your perceptions and beliefs of how consciousness should work for zygotes upon them without any evidence to justify doing so. Your ideas are what you are imposing, upon an entity which is not subject to your ideas, or anyone elses' for that matter.

You choose to define consciousness in a manner that fulfills your personal desire for abortion to be permissible. Your definition is based on conditions which are not reasonable to apply to an organism existing in a stage of development that pre-exists your conditions. Therefore, you are imposing your personal conditions on what qualifies something to receive rights.

Originally posted by blaze8492
Empirically false. If the mother slices her hand, does the child magically get a cut on its hand too? If the mother eats healthy and is perfectly healthy, we should never see any deaths before childbirth, or disfigured children through flawed genetic development. And yet, we see that all the time with people who have done nothing to harm their child and followed all the rules. This is a reality that shouldn't hold if your assertions are correct.

Dude... that's FFing faeces.

Really. What the hell are you on?
The argument is about sustainability, not about bloody paper cuts.

Doesn't anybody in your vicinity slap you for being a flaccid penis?

Originally posted by twhitehead
Yes, I do and was not pretending not to. I was pointing out some problems with what you are referring to.

[b]Cloning is completely separate from reproduction, and you know that too.
Cloning is a form of reproduction. If a single celled fertilised egg has rights then why doesn't a cloneable skin cell too? That is what I am getting at. That is som ...[text shortened]... differences between a parent and child. That difference does not exist between identical twins.[/b]

Skin cells don't get cloned in nature. You don't see skin cells on your arm suddenly turning into stem cells and then growing into a zygote. Likewise, you don't see unfertilized eggs turning into babies at random inside a woman's womb. You must artificially insert new genes to reprogram skin cells to become embryonic stem cells in order for you to clone anything. And even then, you've established a clone as a living entity, genetically the same, but existing separate and growing at a different rate and under different conditions.

Did you actually read the links? Your argument is irrelevant, because they dismantle your position. They are different enough that if I were to murder one of the twins, the crime lab could distinguish the other from the first as a twin. That difference is enough to establish them as separate genetic entities.

Originally posted by shavixmir
Dude... that's FFing faeces.

Really. What the hell are you on?
The argument is about sustainability, not about bloody paper cuts.

Doesn't anybody in your vicinity slap you for being a flaccid penis?

Awwww, that's all you've got? Nothing better than that? Pathetic insults man. You know, projection is a terrible coping mechanism. You should probably see a therapist for that.

Originally posted by blaze8492
Awwww, that's all you've got? Nothing better than that? Pathetic insults man. You know, projection is a terrible coping mechanism. You should probably see a therapist for that.

You don't even attempt to discuss the argument I give.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

No way! Go back to falling off the flat planet or whatever you believe in, you're not a part of humanity.

Originally posted by blaze8492
It does not explicitly establish an hierarchy, but it is the first right officially named in the document. You can argue that the order of naming means nothing, but you'd be hard pressed to establish that, given the commentaries throughout the process of drafting the document. During the drafting sessions, it was almost universally agreed that the docume ...[text shortened]... s leads me to believe that the Right to Life is placed in special significance for the document.

So we are into similar realms as US Supreme Court decisions concerning the intention of the Framers of the US Constitution, which is hardly an uncontroversial subject. What the UN thinks the priorities for rights are and what the priorities different rights ought to have are different things. So, while I am entirely comfortable with you having an unjustified belief, since this is a debating forum I'm entitled to ask you to either justify your claim that the right to life ought to be more fundamental than other rights or to concede the debating point.

For the record, I'd regard the priorities of different rights as being situational. It's one of those things, in any real case the specific narrative matters, and which rights are more fundamental, or even relevant, depend on the details of the case one is considering.

Edit: Also I'd draw your attention to the nuance that "a respect for life" is not quite the same as the construction of a "right to life". We had the death penalty until 1998, although only for High Treason from 1968. If it were then you would have to regard the first article as constructing a right to equality and therefore having priority over the right to life.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You don't even attempt to discuss the argument I give.

Am I supposed to take you seriously?

No way! Go back to falling off the flat planet or whatever you believe in, you're not a part of humanity.

I actually did, you just didn't address it. I noted that if your position held, then we shouldn't see any instances where a mother who does everything right gives birth to a child with a birth defect, or loses the child before childbirth. Yet we see that all the time.

And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

No way! Go back to your cave, maybe you'll discover fire before your pathetically short life ends in that primitive society of yours.

Originally posted by DeepThought
So we are into similar realms as US Supreme Court decisions concerning the intention of the Framers of the US Constitution, which is hardly an uncontroversial subject. What the UN thinks the priorities for rights are and what the priorities different rights ought to have are different things. So, while I am entirely comfortable with you having a ...[text shortened]... ts are more fundamental, or even relevant, depend on the details of the case one is considering.

I'm not exactly sure how providing evidence that shows the framers of the world-body's chosen Human Rights Document considered the Right to Life to be of special importance constitutes an unjustified belief. You also haven't addressed the logical argument I put forward (that because life is required for any rights to exist, the Right to Life is the most fundamental right, and precedes all else). Would you care to address that?

As to whether that ought to be the case, you're under just as much burden of proof to show that your particular opinion ought to be the right interpretation. So far, I haven't seen you produce any evidence backing up your claim, so as of now, the one with the position that is least justified is you, not I.

Originally posted by blaze8492
I actually did, you just didn't address it. I noted that if your position held, then we shouldn't see any instances where a mother who does everything right gives birth to a child with a birth defect, or loses the child before childbirth. Yet we see that all the time.

And I'm supposed to take you seriously?

No way! Go back to your cave, maybe you'll discover fire before your pathetically short life ends in that primitive society of yours.

Jesus H. Christ man!

That a faetus evolved
Irregulary and comes out with a mutation, has nothing to do with what I'm saying.

If a woman wants an abortion; no matter the reason or who's set to gain or lose, it's her choice.

Once a baby is born, it's no longer physically bound to the mother.

End of story.

Get with it.

Originally posted by blaze8492
Zygotes have no consciousness based on your definition. Again, you are imposing your perceptions and beliefs of how consciousness should work for zygotes upon them without any evidence to justify doing so. Your ideas are what you are imposing, upon an entity which is not subject to your ideas, or anyone elses' for that matter.

You choose to define con ...[text shortened]... refore, you are imposing your personal conditions on what qualifies something to receive rights.

Zygotes have no consciousness according to any reasonable definition thereof. I linked an article about foetal development and consciousness; there is no way zygotes have anything resembling a consciousness.