He tells us that it's alright to execute these developing human beings because, according to him, there's no capacity for consciousness up to a certain point. And yet, earlier in the debate you heard him say that we only know things based on observation. And I'd like to know: On what observational basis does he know what consciousness the developing fetus has or doesn't have, or is even capable of having? Are capabilities something that you observe as well? You see, he just can't decide which worldview he wants to use. As a matter of fact, what you see in the case of the developing fetus is always a matter of degree. There is no question after conception that you have all the biological components here of a human being. The child does not become a human being when it is fully developed in its mental capacities. I can't believe a man who has relatives who were killed under that kind of thinking would now apply it to innocent unborn children. For you see, if you start saying "those people that you don't deem fully developed" can now be executed, then we're right back to Hitler and the genocide of people that you think aren't fully developed.(Emphases follow Bahnsen's voice pattern.)
This served as a bit of an inspiration for me last Thursday when I was engaging some pro-legal-baby-murder protesters near the Justice For All exhibit on the nearby university campus. I found myself in a conversation with two young Jewish men, one of whom was making the case that the unborn child acquires human rights at time of his or her exhibition of brain waves. Another protester later told me that whether the unborn baby has human rights should not affect the legality of abortion and does not affect it in her mind, but anyway... I'd say for most reasonable people, if the baby has human rights and is human, they would say it shouldn't be legal and it isn't moral to kill the baby. In other words, for most people, unborn baby = human? is the foremost question of the abortion debate.
The point that I made to the Jewish gentleman was rather provocative. The 3rd Reich decided on an arbitrary basis that Jewish people (among other ethnicities and social groupings) were not human. (Yes, the tired "Hitler example"; don't turn your brain off - just b/c it is [over]used does not mean it does not hold.) I ask: In what way is the arbitrary decision that the unborn human acquires human rights when s/he exhibits brain waves qualitatively different than the Nazis' arbitrary decision that Jewish people were not human?
He responded: "But these Jews were walking, talking, had jobs, had families, had lives. How could you say that it's the same?"
I reminded him that an arbitrary decision based on performance can be on a limitless sliding scale - whomever is in power gets to decide who has human rights. If they decide you don't have human rights, you don't. Then you're no more important than cattle, and you can be killed without much remorse at all. Which is what happened.
Human rights must be bestowed based on whether one is human. There is no good reason to believe that human rights are bestowed based on what one can do. This leads to all sorts of highly faulty and awful conclusions - those in a coma are no longer human. A little adjustment one way or the other, and someone loses his humanity when he is asleep. Or I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.
No, the real bases for human rights is ontological, not performance-based. We argue against the latter using, among other things, the acronym SLED.
The conferral of human rights does not, indeed, must not depend on:
-Size or physical appearance
-Level of development
-Environment (location)
-Degree of dependency
30 comments:
I'm glad I don't have to decide you lives and dies. Well, I do have to decide about insects and I've decided to ba a vegetarian.
Different rights are granted to humans at different times in their lives, according to reasonable estimates of their abilities. For example, newborns are not granted the right to vote. You have to mature a certain degree before you can vote, or drink alcohol, drive a car, open a bank account, and engage in other activities which define the full scope of freedom and responsibility we all want.
Rights are not "all or nothing," and there is no sense in denying the relationship between rights and abilities.
There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about regarding an organism's right to life by taking into account its abilities.
We also always have to take into account how the rights of others are implicated. One's rights do not extend infinitely, without qualification.
The fact is, for quite some time after conception, a developing fetus does not in any way resemble a person. It therefore should not be treated like a person. It should be treated like a developing fetus, an extraordinarily important and precious entity--but not a person deserving of the full range of human rights we grant to adults.
Funny to be lectured about morality by someone with the username "Hi Def Porn". Well, the blogosphere gets all kinds, I guess.
You do realise, don't you, HDP, that broccoli is a living thing too. Trees produce nuts - you think they appreciate your taking their nuts for your own personal benefit? What about decapitating cabbage and lettuce?
And BTW, I'm arguing that the right to decide who lives and dies SHOULD NOT be in individuals' hands in the case of abortion, so apparently you and I agree.
Jason,
Different rights are granted to humans at different times in their lives, according to reasonable estimates of their abilities
Then you run afoul of the SLED argument. We're not talking about the right to drink or vote; we're talking about the right not to be killed. Voting and drinking, BTW, are privileges, not human rights like life is.
there is no sense in denying the relationship between rights and abilities.
Then I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person. They were inconvenient to me, and my human rights supersede theirs.
There is nothing arbitrary or unreasonable about regarding an organism's right to life by taking into account its abilities.
Make an argument to that end, plz, not a naked assertion.
One's rights do not extend infinitely, without qualification.
Which is an argument in pro-life's favor, yes.
a developing fetus does not in any way resemble a person.
You mean except for a heartbeat at 7 weeks, human DNA from the beginning, limbs at a very early age, different blood type from mom, etc? Except for that, right?
How much is enough difference? Do YOU resemble a person enough not to be killed? What is the qualitative difference between this approach and the Nazis'? They simply decided that Jews didn't resemble humans enough to be considered human.
It should be treated like a developing fetus, an extraordinarily important and precious entity--but not a person deserving of the full range of human rights we grant to adults.
I take it that you think the fetus is so extraordinarily important and precious that it can be killed at any time without provocation or penalty of law? If so, you are an amazing hypocrite, but maybe you have sthg else in mind.
Peace,
Rhology
rhology,
I don't see any point arguing the semantics of "rights" versus "privileges" here. Voting is normally considered a right. You can call it a privilege, if you want, but that doesn't change the debate. We can call the right to life a privilege, too. That's just semantics.
You want people to recognize some difference between the right to life and most other rights, like the right to vote and the right to own property. What is the difference, in your opinion?
Why should most rights be judged according to ability and development, but not the right to life?
You said, "Then I have greater human rights if I am older, stronger, smarter, richer, or in a better location; if those things are true, and someone who is younger, less intelligent, and poorer is standing in my way, I can morally (and legally) kill that person."
No, that does not follow from anything I've said. The reason we condemn the actions of the Nazis, and the reason we grant adult women the right to vote, and the reason we don't kill people who aren't old enough to buy land, is because we understand the value of attributing certain rights to certain individuals.
We don't need some arbitrary assertion to guide our moral judgments about these things, like your arbitrary claim that the right to life, unlike every other righ, is not based on development or ability, but on the fact that a developing fetus is a human fetus.
By claiming that your position is the only alternative to Nazi genocide, you are grossly oversimplifying the debate and unjustly misrepresenting the logic of your opposition. You are, in short, being wholly unreasonable.
The simple problem, I think, is that you continue to think of rights in terms of "all or nothing." That isn't the way it works at all. A simple reflection on the various ways we recognize different rights should help you understand this fact.
I wrote, "One's rights do not extend infinitely, without qualification."
You replied: "Which is an argument in pro-life's favor, yes."
No, it's an argument in favor of sensibly recognizing the limits of all rights, including the right to life.
"You mean except for a heartbeat at 7 weeks, human DNA from the beginning, limbs at a very early age, different blood type from mom, etc? Except for that, right?
How much is enough difference? Do YOU resemble a person enough not to be killed?"
I don't resemble a person. I am a person. This is something I can demonstrate to anyone properly situated to make such judgments.
As for the other "resemblances" you mentioned, they don't seem like very much to me. I've seen embryos and fetuses. I have a child of my own, and I paid very close attention as she developed in her mother's womb.
"I take it that you think the fetus is so extraordinarily important and precious that it can be killed at any time without provocation or penalty of law? If so, you are an amazing hypocrite."
I don't see anything hypocritical in my position here.
I think a fetus is so extraordinarily important and precious that it should be taken seriously and respected as a developing fetus, as a potential human being. But that does not require that we forget what it is that we're talking about.
And I don't think human fetuses should be allowed to be killed without penalty at any time, and by any body. Not at all. I think only certain people should have a say in the fate of a fetus, and that there is a certain point in the development of that fetus when they no longer have the right to terminate it. But understanding that would you to adopt a more nuanced understanding of rights than you seem willing to consider.
Hi again Jason,
Nice talking to you.
Voting is normally considered a right.
For the minority of recorded human history.
I consider it a privilege; the US founding documents do not regard it as so weighty a right as life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, for example.
We can call the right to life a privilege, too.
Only if you want to strip all meaning out of the word "right".
What is the difference, in your opinion?
The right to life is more fundamental.
Why should most rights be judged according to ability and development, but not the right to life?
Good question, actually.
But we'd need to agree on what is a right and what is a privilege, actually.
Voting, drinking, and driving are not rights, but privileges.
I'd reduce it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the purposes of an American-legal discourse. And those don't come with age limits. that's why the Preamble says that the Constitution seeks to "secure the blessings of liberty to us and to our posterity". The posterity doesn't have those blessings if they're dead, murdered by their own parents.
that does not follow from anything I've said.
Certainly follows from most pro-baby-murder arguments I've encountered, but maybe you're more careful. We'll see.
because we understand the value of attributing certain rights to certain individuals.
I love it - "certain individuals". And how do you judge between them?
And how is that qualitatively different from that which the Nazis did? They attributed certain rights - the right to life - to certain Aryan individuals. But if you were too Jewish, you lost that right. Now you're a fit subject for grotesque murder and medical experimentation.
We don't need some arbitrary assertion to guide our moral judgments about these things
You mean like your arbitrary attribution of rights to those to whom you want to give them?
How about just giving human rights to ALL HUMANS? Seriously, what is so hard about that?
like your arbitrary claim that the right to lif
Make the argument that my claim is arbitrary. My claim is consistent, for one thing, and is the way reality actually is, since TGOTB has told us that's how it is.
By claiming that your position is the only alternative to Nazi genocide
1) Please. Go back and read it again. I've simply ASKED YOU how your position is qualitatively different from what they did.
2) Just b/c one's reasoning is no different from the Nazis doesn't mean that one has the existential cojones to actually be consistent and consistently heartless to do what they did. There are more barriers to human action than just the intellectual - the existential plays a real part in real-life human actions, which is one reason why atheists almost never live consistently with their stated values.
it's an argument in favor of sensibly recognizing the limits of all rights, including the right to life.
Please make the argument why I couldn't, then, reasonably recognise the limit to YOUR right to life, if I had the power to do so.
Make sure it's non-arbitrary and consistent with atheism.
I am a person.
Not according to me. I have sensibly recognised the limit to your right to life. It ends now.
This is something I can demonstrate to anyone properly situated to make such judgments.
And how do you demonstrate that?
As for the other "resemblances" you mentioned, they don't seem like very much to me.
But what argument do you bring to the table against my statement? Pardon me if I don't care whether they "seem like very much" to you.
I think only certain people should have a say in the fate of a fetus
Yes, only the privileged few. The card-carrying Party members.
You're talking like a Nazi, only you don't have the wherewithal to fire up the ovens.
there is a certain point in the development of that fetus when they no longer have the right to terminate it.
When? How do you know? Who decided that point? Why can't I, as farther along in my development, reasonably kill you as an inconvenience?
Dunning, meet Kruger.
And you must be Mr. Self-Projection. Charmed.
Incidentally, how would you define "human"?
Of or pertaining to the species Homo sapiens.
So a corpse is a human, and has human rights?
Interesting.
Rhoblogy,
Your entire argument rests on your differentiation between the right to life and other rights, a differentiation which arbitrarily asserts that the former must be granted at the moment of conception, without any considerations made regarding abilities or development.
This is an arbitrary assertion, and it is put forward as being the only rational option. Any alternative, according to you, is equivalent to Nazism. The reason, you say, is that granting the right to life some time after conception would be totally arbitrary.
Yet, you haven't explained why your assertion is anything but arbitrary.
In response to my question about this, you said:
"But we'd need to agree on what is a right and what is a privilege, actually.
Voting, drinking, and driving are not rights, but privileges.
I'd reduce it to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness for the purposes of an American-legal discourse."
That's totally arbitrary. We're talking about how to best approach public policy here. We're not talking about how best to interpret the United States Constitution.
Are you simply arguing about what is the most Constitutional view on abortion? Or are you arguing about what is the most moral and rational view on abortion?
I think we're talking about the latter, so we need not concern ourselves with what is most applicable to Americanlegal discourse.
In any case, you are wrong when you say that "those don't come with age limits."
Liberty and the pursuit of happiness do, in fact, come with age limits. Minors in America are not at liberty to do lots of things that adults can do. Many liberties come with age. Furthermore, many avenues towards happiness are closed off to minors.
Sure, minors are at liberty to pursue happiness in many ways. But not as many as adults.
Frankly, I still don't see a difference here . . . nothing to substantiate your claim that the right to life shouldn't be based on abilities or development.
You keep going back to the Nazis, a tactic which I think does more to provoke emotions than produce substantive argument.
The Nazis killed millions of people because of social and racial prejudice. They were not legislating policy according to rational standards of human ability and development. They were legislating executions according to irrational prejudices.
You asked me, "how do you judge between them?"
How do we judge who should have certain rights?
Well, for one thing, we do it carefully. I think it's better to err on the side of caution.
But with many rights, it's not so difficult to understand the decision-making process. Like the right to vote, for example. To have a say in political elections, one should have some amount of experience and education--enough to have an informed opinion, at least.
To own property and engage in voluntary contracts, one should similarly be experienced and educated enough to make informed, rational, and responsible decisions.
As for the right to life, I do agree that it is more fundamental, but that doesn't mean it should be granted as arbitrarily as you suggest. The moment of conception is biologically significant, but there is no clear reason why that should have the legal consequences you claim.
The way I look at it is, what factors must we consider when we, as a society, as a species, decide who or what has the right to life?
It's not an easy question, and I don't expect a single answer to satisfy everyone. Ultimately, the question is, what beings must we grant the right to life to maintain a healthy and prosperous civilization?
The answer will change as civilization changes. At the moment, it seems to me that a fetus somewhere in the third trimester is a good enough rough guess, based on our understanding of human development and the needs of civilization.
"How about just giving human rights to ALL HUMANS? Seriously, what is so hard about that?"
Again, the "all or nothing" attitude that misrepresents the situation.
The main problem with granting the right to life to embryos at the moment of conception is that it compromises the rights of women. I'm sure you know all about that, but in your view, the rights of women aren't as important as the rights of a barely-formed embryo.
I sympathize with those who prioritize the rights of women over the rights of the embryo, because when we deny these rights to women, we create problems in civilization. When we deny the right to life to an embryo, we only create problems with religious people who have arbitrarily decided that the moment of conception is a magical moment in the eyes of God.
I think I've addressed everything of substance in your last set of comments. I know you raised some other questions, but I think they were more for effect, and any substance they might have contained should have been answered by what I've already written here.
Howdy,
Name's Rhology, BTW. Rhoblogy is the blog.
We're talking about how to best approach public policy here. We're not talking about how best to interpret the United States Constitution.
Your desire to distance the two from each other says a great deal, actually.
The Constitution IS the foundation for public policy in this country, or should be. I guess you may argue, but then again you were just taking issue with my accusations of arbitrariness. That's not going to help your cause at all.
Or are you arguing about what is the most moral and rational view on abortion?
Which is the most moral and rational. The Constitution helps, though.
Besides, you were the one who brought up American legal stuff - voting and drinking - so I don't know why you're criticising me.
The Nazis killed millions of people because of social and racial prejudice.
And you support killing millions of people b/c of age and location prejudice.
How are you any better?
They were not legislating policy according to rational standards of human ability and development.
Sure they were. Jews weren't human. Simple.
I do agree that it is more fundamental, but that doesn't mean it should be granted as arbitrarily as you suggest.
As *I* suggest? You must be joking.
I'm the one arguing for full human rights for any product of human conception that carries all human DNA.
Not that hard. You're the one who wants to split hairs and try to figure out when said products with full human DNA become human and don't become human. It's a whale of a job, and it's of the same quality as what the Nazis did.
The moment of conception is biologically significant, but there is no clear reason why that should have the legal consequences you claim.
There you go again bringing up legal consequences. Please, make up your mind which avenue you want to pursue.
The answer will change as civilization changes.
So conceivably, society could change so that it's considered morally right that all atheists named Jason be killed on sight. Presumably you'd be OK with that.
The main problem with granting the right to life to embryos at the moment of conception is that it compromises the rights of women.
To what right do you refer? The right not to be inconvenienced as a consequence of your own actions (for <90% of cases)? Where is that written? Whence is it derived?
When we deny the right to life to an embryo, we only create problems with religious people who have arbitrarily decided that the moment of conception is a magical moment in the eyes of God.
1) Strawman. It's not "magical" at all. It's the time after which the God-created human exists, and you don't have the authority to kill that human unless that human is engaged in unjust war or has committed a capital crime.
2) Many, many medical journals say the same thing. It's not "magical" for them.
because when we deny these rights to women, we create problems in civilization.
Oh, OK, and denying the most fundamental right to younger, weaker, less noisy members of civilisation has no adverse effect, I presume. Please.
I'm the one arguing for full human rights for any product of human conception that carries all human DNA.
Like corpses.
You appear to have forgotten the point of this question - is it OK to kill these beings or not?
Corpses are already dead.
It says alot about your argument that you have to resort to this kind of remark.
You appear to have forgotten the point of this question - is it OK to kill these beings or not? Corpses are already dead.
The title of the post is "To whom rights belong". According to your logic, full human rights should be accorded to corpses. Obviously the right to life is meaningless to a corpse, but the right to freedom of expression, the right to vote, the right not to be tortured, and so forth - these should all be accorded to corpses. According to you.
So deal with the challenge. Why shouldn't corpses be given full human right?
Anonymous,
The arguments Rhology made for human rights based on the fetus' possessing DNA included that the fetus is ALIVE. Living humans have human rights intrinsically. Dead humans have no rights because the person is no longer in the body. I.E. there is no person to give or take rights away from. If Rhology's argument was as stupid as "Human BODIES get human rights" then the argument ad absurdum you are trying to clumsily to apply about corpses would work.
Rhology,
You misunderstood my comments about the US Constitution.
I am well aware of the role that document plays in American life. My point was that our discussion should not be limited to arguments over how to interpret the Constitution. In fact, we should be open to the possibility that we might discover problems with the Constitution, however unlikely that is. So, while reference to the Constitution is certainly warranted and relevant, it should not be the sole focus of our attention, and it should not be treated like an infallible authority.
You ask, “And you support killing millions of people b/c of age and location prejudice.
How are you any better?”
What “age and location” prejudice are you talking about?
My views on abortion are not based on prejudice, but on the careful weighing of the relevant issues. I have no illusions as to the nature of a developing embryo.
I support a mother’s right to terminate her own pregnancy. To you, that equates to Nazism. And yet, I do not support the wanton murdering of any living organisms even remotely similar to human beings, including dogs, cats, sheep, and mice. I do not support genocide. I do not support racism.
You claim that the Nazi’s attitude towards Jews was rational. Please, explain the rationality of their genocidal behavior. On what rational basis did they conclude that Jews weren’t human?
Note that I am not claiming embryos aren’t human. They are human. They are human embryos. They are not human beings, however. They are not people.
You say, “As *I* suggest? You must be joking.
I'm the one arguing for full human rights for any product of human conception that carries all human DNA.”
Yes, and that is arbitrary. Why do you limit these rights to human beings? Why not grant them to all mammals? And why not grant them to babies at the moment they are born? That is just as easy, after all. Why grant them at the moment of conception, when the lump of cells does not in any way function like a human being?
Yours is a most patently arbitrary position.
Not only that, but you are lying, because you obviously are not arguing for granting full human rights to embryos. Or do you think embryos should have the right to vote? And the right to enter into contracts?
At what age do you think a person should have the right to voluntarily enter into contracts?
“So conceivably, society could change so that it's considered morally right that all atheists named Jason be killed on sight. Presumably you'd be OK with that.”
Maybe you don’t understand what the word “rational” means. Is that the case?
A broader question for you, Rhology:
On what basis do you justify ascribing any rights to anyone at all?
Note that I anticipate an answer which points to religious beliefs and texts. And remember that I find it impossible to take such beliefs seriously.
From my view, we have two choices here: one, approach the issue of rights pragmatically; two, approach them dogmatically. The former is rational, the latter is not. I support the rational approach. What about you?
The arguments Rhology made for human rights based on the fetus' possessing DNA included that the fetus is ALIVE.
Well Kyle, Rhology didn't include that qualification in either of his definitions of "human". Perhaps he should, eh?
Dead humans have no rights because the person is no longer in the body. I.E. there is no person to give or take rights away from.
Ah. So you disagree with Rhology - to be accorded human rights, one must be a "person" rather than simply a "human" as defined by Rhology. Which leads to the interesting problem of defining who counts as a person.
Oh, and I'd be fascinated to see your evidence that such a thing as a "person" exists independently of the "human being".
Rhology said:
"No, the real bases for human rights is ontological, not performance-based."
Thus far the discussion is based on living humans. Rhology's def'n emphasizes that human BEINGS have rights based on what they are, not what they do. A dead body is not a human being. It is a dead human body where a human person was.
Anonymous said:
"Ah. So you disagree with Rhology - to be accorded human rights, one must be a "person" rather than simply a "human" as defined by Rhology."
Not so. The ontology of a human that Rhology was referring to includes the personhood of the individual human.
"Oh, and I'd be fascinated to see your evidence that such a thing as a "person" exists independently of the "human being"."
If you want to get into the mind-body problem we can.
NDE's are fascinating but not the best evidence.
I can present a line of evidence based on the self authenticating revelation of God through the scriptures that the soul exists and will continue after death eternally. Interested?
Also, it is intuitive that "I" am not my body. For example, assuming that the medical technology is available let's do a thought experiment.
First, remove and graft on new arms and legs to my body. Next, we can replace each internal organ one at a time until I don't have any orginal organs in my torso. Skin grafts can replace all my skin and then we move to the head. Eyes, ears, nose, tongue.
Ah, but one might say that the life of the body is in the brain!
Finally, we replace every brain cell by synthetic brain cells grafted in small clusters.
So now that my body has been replace and yet I have all memories of my past self, am I still the same person? It is evident that I am still me with different parts. I am the soul that possesses my body.
Lastly, I have a challenge for you in return. If you cut open my brain to look for 'me' when I am thinking my thoughts where am I and what does my thought, "I like cheese" look like, smell like, feel like, taste like, and sound like? It seems very intuitive that the mind is not the same substance as the body.
Jason,
My point was that our discussion should not be limited to arguments over how to interpret the Constitution.
OK, that wasn't clear.
And I'd agree that the discussion is at least two spheres - moral/ethical and legal, if not others.
it should not be treated like an infallible authority.
It should for questions of American law, but not necessarily for moral/ethical questions, I agree.
Of course, for an atheist, there is not only not any infallible authority for moral questions, there is not even an objective one outside the individual or group of individuals, so we always have to salt our thoughts with that reminder.
What “age and location” prejudice are you talking about?
The unborn baby is a fairly young human being - age.
The unborn baby lives inside his mother's baby - location.
To say that b/c Person X is quite young (arbitrary distinction) and living in a specific location (again, arbitrary distinction), it's OK to kill that person is illicit. It's morally bankrupt, and it's precisely of the same quality as 3rd Reich reasoning wrt Jews.
I support a mother’s right to terminate her own pregnancy
1) Whence do you derive any idea of rights? Of a mother or otherwise? (moral)
2) Such is not found in the Constitution either. (legal)
3) Let's call it what it is - to murder her baby. No euphemisms allowed.
To you, that equates to Nazism.
I've patiently explained more than twice just what equates to Nazism, and it's not this strawman. Engage the argument or leave it alone.
I do not support the wanton murdering of any living organisms even remotely similar to human beings, including dogs, cats, sheep, and mice.
Um, so baby humans are not "remotely similar to human beings"?
I do not support genocide.
Unless we're talking about really young people. Then it's OK.
I do not support racism.
Only age-discrimination. Why is morally superior to discriminate and kill based on age rather than on ethnicity?
You claim that the Nazi’s attitude towards Jews was rational.
??? Where did I say that? You've become a strawman-o-matic, seriously.
The Nazis were CONSISTENT with their arbitrary "this one is human, this one is not human" distinctions, just like you are.
On what rational basis did they conclude that Jews weren’t human?
None.
Now you answer - on what rational basis do you conclude that babies aren't human?
Note that I am not claiming embryos aren’t human. They are human. They are human embryos. They are not human beings, however.
Note that I am not claiming Jews aren’t human. They are human. They are human Jews. They are not human beings, however.
Why not grant them to all mammals?
Maybe b/c all mammals don't have human DNA? Is this a serious question?
And why not grant them to babies at the moment they are born?
You tell me. Let's say we take your suggestion. What is the QUALITATIVE difference between the born baby who has rights and the unborn baby 2 minutes before? I'm curious.
when the lump of cells does not in any way function like a human being?
1) Once again you reduce humanity to what one DOES and therefore fall victim to my above arguments.
2) You mean when the lump of cells does not develop like humans do, doesn't function like an organism with human DNA does? You can't even make this work on your own grounds.
Or do you think embryos should have the right to vote? And the right to enter into contracts?
No. I also don't think that certain adults should have the right to vote and enter into contracts.
Voting, *IF* it's a right (as opposed to a privilege), is to be distinguished in the most strenuous possible way from the fundamental right not to be murdered for no reason by someone else.
Maybe you don’t understand what the word “rational” means. Is that the case?
Maybe you could answer the question. I'll be waiting.
Kyle:
Rhology's def'n emphasizes that human BEINGS have rights based on what they are, not what they do.
And yet he also supports capital punishment, and believes that people forfeit the right to life if they commit murder. So clearly he does subscribe to the idea that human beings have rights based on what they do, not just what they are.
A dead body is not a human being. It is a dead human body where a human person was.
So far we've got humans, human beings, human bodies and human persons. Perhaps you could clarify exactly what you mean by all of these, rather than swapping the terms around when it suits you.
The ontology of a human that Rhology was referring to includes the personhood of the individual human.
Yet he didn't use that expression once in his argument, nor have you provided a definition of what "personhood" is.
Also, it is intuitive that "I" am not my body.
Maybe it is for you. For me it's intuitive that I am my body.
So now that my body has been replace and yet I have all memories of my past self, am I still the same person? It is evident that I am still me with different parts. I am the soul that possesses my body.
First, you've suddenly introduced the concept of the "soul" where being discussed before. You mix terms like "soul", "mind", "memories", "personhood" and so forth, without giving any definition for any of them. Second, this "thought experiment" doesn't show that the mind is different to the body, but the opposite - you are arguing that a complete physical replacement using identical parts would keep your "soul" intact, and thus that the soul is exactly equivalent to the sum of those parts.
(Of course, this thought experiment is usually used to demonstrate something completely different, rather than proving a soul - which is of course because it doesn't prove any such thing. You've just added that sentence at the end, and it doesn't follow from your argument at all.)
Lastly, I have a challenge for you in return. If you cut open my brain to look for 'me' when I am thinking my thoughts where am I and what does my thought, "I like cheese" look like, smell like, feel like, taste like, and sound like? It seems very intuitive that the mind is not the same substance as the body.
That doesn't seem intuitive to me at all. The mind is very much of the same substance of the body to the extent that nobody in the history of the world has ever seen, heard, or otherwise sensed a mind without a body. I know exactly where "you" are. You're a series of physical and chemical reactions in the brain of your body, which is the only place you've ever been and the only place you'll ever be. You can prove me wrong by giving me a single example of a mind without a body. Bonne chance!
Anonymous,
Examples of disembodied minds:
God. Angels. Demons. Dead people in Hades/Abraham's Bosom.
The evidence for God is the impossibility of the contrary. All others follow via revelation from the self evident God.
Definitions:
Human - of or pertaining to the human race
Human Being - A being that is alive and human
Human Body - The physical components of a human being. Can be alive or dead.
Person/Self/Soul - The individual living in a human body. Can be disembodied at death.
Examples of disembodied minds: God. Angels. Demons. Dead people in Hades/Abraham's Bosom.
Show me them, please.
The evidence for God is the impossibility of the contrary. All others follow via revelation from the self evident God.
I didn't realise that this was a comedy blog, although now that I think about it I have to admit that I've been laughing quite loudly reading most of the posts.
Could you also deal with the problem that your thought experiment proves the opposite point to the one you thought you were arguing?
"I didn't realise that this was a comedy blog, although now that I think about it I have to admit that I've been laughing quite loudly reading most of the posts."
Busy day at work. Love to entertain you but I've got other things to do. By the way, God is laughing at you too.
"But since you rejected me when I called and no one gave heed when I stretched out my hand, since you ignored all my advice and would not accept my rebuke, I in turn will laugh at your disaster; I will mock when calamity overtakes you-- when calamity overtakes you like a storm, when disaster sweeps over you like a whirlwind, when distress and trouble overwhelm you. " Proverb;1;24-27
So no actual evidence of minds without bodies, then? Shame, but that's how these discussions usually end.
"So no actual evidence of minds without bodies, then? Shame, but that's how these discussions usually end."
You ask me to "weigh a chicken with a yardstick" and then are disappointed when I can't come up with the answer you want? Your loss. I hope you have a great day. I don't take it personally that you didn't find the few arguments I offered compelling. Perhaps Greg Koukl will give you better stuff to chew on.
http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5560
I never asked you to weigh a chicken with a yardstick. I asked you to give me examples of minds without bodies; you proceeded to give examples which could only be reasonably accepted after somebody professes the Christian faith. I allowed you this point, and merely asked for evidence; you proceeded to give no evidence whatsoever. If you think that makes your arguments anywhere near compelling... well, whatever. I'll try the article you linked to, in hope.
Read the article. It was largely devoid of merit.
My response to this post is blended with my response to Rhology's recent post about my last post in this discussion.
Here's the link:
The Truth About Atheism And Morality
Post a Comment