25 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492Alright - but you do realize that argument is circular? You label something X and then say X should have Y because you have labeled certain things to be X.
I've already stated them: simply being a member of the human species is enough. That condition does not allow for anyone to subjectively determine, at any point in time, that you or I do not deserve our rights. It preserves our rights indefinitely. Preservation of Human Rights is paramount to me.
Why is "simply being a member of the human species" enough?
25 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy shouldn't it be? Why do I require more justification for deserving Human Rights than being a member of the species? Why must I earn them, in any fashion, and why must the awarding of them be conditional upon anyone elses' ideas or opinions?
Alright - but you do realize that argument is circular? You label something X and then say X should have Y because you have labeled certain things to be X.
Why is "simply being a member of the human species" enough?
The argument isn't that circular:
Entity X1 is human. All Entities Xn receive Human Rights if they are Human. Therefore, Entity X1 receives Human Rights.
Right Y1 is the Right to Life. Therefore, Entity X1 receives Y1.
EDIT: To further my point about not having to earn or justify deserving Human Rights some definitions of the term that show the concept of placing conditions upon human rights is inconsistent with the nature of the term itself -
From the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights:
"Human rights are rights inherent to all human beings, whatever our nationality, place of residence, sex, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. We are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination. These rights are all interrelated, interdependent and indivisible."
A dictionary definition: "The basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are considered to be entitled, often held to include the rights to life, liberty, equality, and a fair trial, freedom from slavery and torture, and freedom of thought and expression."
Another (Merriam Webster): "rights (as freedom from unlawful imprisonment, torture, and execution) regarded as belonging fundamentally to all persons"
In general, the notion that Human Rights must be earned or bestowed is contradictory.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraReasons and motivations are not logically required for anything to take place. And even if they were, I've presented a reason: Status as a member of the Human Species.
Well I don't know about you, but I like to have reasons for doing and believing certain things.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492A non-viable ZEF's "status" is being inside the confines of a human being who has an inalienable right to do with that body what they please i.e. the right to self-sovereignity.
Reasons and motivations are not logically required for anything to take place. And even if they were, I've presented a reason: Status as a member of the Human Species.
For someone who claims to have an interest in "Human Rights", your disinterest in the rights of women is rather striking.
25 Dec 16
1 edit
Originally posted by blaze8492These abortion discussions usually devolve into "beardy man said so" (or in no1's case: beardy Natural Rights said so). I guess it's kind of refreshing, in a way, for it to devolve in someone flat-out refusing to argue their position.
Reasons and motivations are not logically required for anything to take place. And even if they were, I've presented a reason: Status as a member of the Human Species.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by no1marauderExcept for the fact that the zygote itself, the being to which any action taken is subject, isn't part of the body. So the mother can do what she likes with everything except that Zygote, because it's not part of her body. Location is not a prerequisite for possession of rights. If it were, I could say that your existence on this earth infringes upon my self-sovereignty, because your existence has effects (however remote and distant they may be) on my body and my lifetime.
A non-viable ZEF's "status" is being inside the confines of a human being who has an inalienable right to do with that body what they please i.e. the right to self-sovereignity.
For someone who claims to have an interest in "Human Rights", your disinterest in the rights of women is rather striking.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI offered you a reason. You are not satisfied. Prove to me that your criteria for what reasons are appropriate are objectively correct, and I should abide by them.
These abortion discussions usually devolve into "beardy man said so" (or in no1's case: beardy Natural Rights said so). I guess it's kind of refreshing, in a way, for it to devolve in someone flat-out refusing to argue their position.
Again, why should anyone be beholden to your particular opinion? Especially when the very nature of Human Rights is contrary to the idea that ANYONE may place restrictions on whether they are deserved and when they may apply.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492A tiresome dodge. That something is contained within her body is sufficient. You are free to evict people from your property, one should not the principle be applicable to the far more intimate confines of one's own body? You've provided no rational reason to differentiate the case of a ZEF from that of a germ or tapeworm.
Except for the fact that the zygote itself, the being to which any action taken is subject, isn't part of the body. So the mother can do what she likes with everything except that Zygote, because it's not part of her body. Location is not a prerequisite for possession of rights. If it were, I could say that your existence on this earth infringes upon my ...[text shortened]... your existence has effects (however remote and distant they may be) on my body and my lifetime.
The effect of a ZEF on a woman's body isn't remote or distant but pervasive and potentially fatal; a fairly high percentage of women died during or shortly after childbirth in the not very distant past. Why the State has a legitimate power to put their life and health potentially at risk by violating their Natural Rights because other people adopt a belief based almost exclusively on religious principles is decidedly unclear.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492No widely accepted theory of Natural or human rights has ever extended them to zygotes.
I offered you a reason. You are not satisfied. Prove to me that your criteria for what reasons are appropriate are objectively correct, and I should abide by them.
Again, why should anyone be beholden to your particular opinion? Especially when the very nature of Human Rights is contrary to the idea that ANYONE may place restrictions on whether they are deserved and when they may apply.
25 Dec 16
Originally posted by blaze8492I can't "prove" that's it's "objectively correct" (whatever that means) to seek to minimize harm, but it is a position I'm willing to argue. You don't have to agree. All am I asking is that your argue your own position.
I offered you a reason. You are not satisfied. Prove to me that your criteria for what reasons are appropriate are objectively correct, and I should abide by them.
Again, why should anyone be beholden to your particular opinion? Especially when the very nature of Human Rights is contrary to the idea that ANYONE may place restrictions on whether they are deserved and when they may apply.
