Tag Archives: human rights

Re: How does a pre-born human being gain human rights at 5 months? What if ALL standard human embryology textbooks stated that human life begins at conception? Because they do! It seems you base your view off of what it looks like, but I want to know why must it look like a human in order for it to have human rights? That seems a little arbitrary, don’t you think? Thanks again for your time, cap. -Dallas

mr-cappadocia:

Something doesn’t necessarily have to look human to have rights. Arguably children, even after they are born, have limited rights. Further, our culture has argued that animals have certain rights, up to and including not being subject to cruel treatment. And this is for creatures we eat.

To better address your point however let’s consider a corpse. When a person dies they do not simply “die”, it’s more akin to shutting down. Various tissues within the human body live on, albeit briefly and by briefly I mean a matter of minutes to hours.

However, should that person be afforded the same human rights as you or I? Connective tissue within the body remains alive for upwards to 24 hours after death. That connective tissue is indeed human and it is indeed alive.

Should my hand be severed and kept alive via a complex process where the hand remains living despite being kept independently of me is it a human unto itself? Have I reproduced by an unorthodox means of fission?

A collection of cells do not a human make.

Perhaps the simplest way I can put this is that a car isn’t a car until you turn it on.

I may have been wrong on my timescale (fetuses can apparently hear at around 4 months) but my fundamental argument is sound.

Really? “A collection of cells do not a human make”?

Sorry, but that argument is unsound, mr-cappadocia. The combination of human sperm and a human egg immediately creates a new human being with the right to live. Any other collection of cells, like a severed hand, are still human (they have human DNA), but they aren’t a ‘new’ human. As we are now, our bodies are nothing more than a massive collection of cells. What makes us unique, though is our God-given spirit, which will live on for all eternity after our bodies return to dust. Since there’s no way of telling when the spirit enters the body, we must treat life at all stages of development as a human life worth protecting.

(you all are welcome to use that argument whenever you need additional support)

Re: How does a pre-born human being gain human rights at 5 months? What if ALL standard human embryology textbooks stated that human life begins at conception? Because they do! It seems you base your view off of what it looks like, but I want to know why must it look like a human in order for it to have human rights? That seems a little arbitrary, don’t you think? Thanks again for your time, cap. -Dallas

mr-cappadocia:

Something doesn’t necessarily have to look human to have rights. Arguably children, even after they are born, have limited rights. Further, our culture has argued that animals have certain rights, up to and including not being subject to cruel treatment. And this is for creatures we eat.

To better address your point however let’s consider a corpse. When a person dies they do not simply “die”, it’s more akin to shutting down. Various tissues within the human body live on, albeit briefly and by briefly I mean a matter of minutes to hours.

However, should that person be afforded the same human rights as you or I? Connective tissue within the body remains alive for upwards to 24 hours after death. That connective tissue is indeed human and it is indeed alive.

Should my hand be severed and kept alive via a complex process where the hand remains living despite being kept independently of me is it a human unto itself? Have I reproduced by an unorthodox means of fission?

A collection of cells do not a human make.

Perhaps the simplest way I can put this is that a car isn’t a car until you turn it on.

I may have been wrong on my timescale (fetuses can apparently hear at around 4 months) but my fundamental argument is sound.

Really? “A collection of cells do not a human make”?

Sorry, but that argument is unsound, mr-cappadocia. The combination of human sperm and a human egg immediately creates a new human being with the right to live. Any other collection of cells, like a severed hand, are still human (they have human DNA), but they aren’t a ‘new’ human. As we are now, our bodies are nothing more than a massive collection of cells. What makes us unique, though is our God-given spirit, which will live on for all eternity after our bodies return to dust. Since there’s no way of telling when the spirit enters the body, we must treat life at all stages of development as a human life worth protecting.

(you all are welcome to use that argument whenever you need additional support)

I think we can rest the ~*~Life starts at conception ~ it wouldn’t grow if it isn’t living~*~ thing because pro-choice people aren’t saying the zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t alive or isn’t human, we know that, and we’re still pro-choice.

cultureshift:

People like you also know that they are little boys and girls living and growing in preparation for their birth. A birth you were lucky enough to be granted. It’s interesting how you have turned your back on those children now that you are big and strong and can so easily snatch their lives away.

Let me help you to understand what you are really saying by contrasting your statement…

“pro-slavery people aren’t saying the negro isn’t alive or isn’t human, we know that, and we’re still pro-slavery.”

Every human being deserves equal human rights, the first among them the Right to Life.

The only time slavery looks decent is when it’s compared to abortion. Both are horrible abominations, and both must be stamped out completely.

I think we can rest the ~*~Life starts at conception ~ it wouldn’t grow if it isn’t living~*~ thing because pro-choice people aren’t saying the zygote/embryo/fetus isn’t alive or isn’t human, we know that, and we’re still pro-choice.

cultureshift:

People like you also know that they are little boys and girls living and growing in preparation for their birth. A birth you were lucky enough to be granted. It’s interesting how you have turned your back on those children now that you are big and strong and can so easily snatch their lives away.

Let me help you to understand what you are really saying by contrasting your statement…

“pro-slavery people aren’t saying the negro isn’t alive or isn’t human, we know that, and we’re still pro-slavery.”

Every human being deserves equal human rights, the first among them the Right to Life.

The only time slavery looks decent is when it’s compared to abortion. Both are horrible abominations, and both must be stamped out completely.

bebinn:

youngmarxist:

So if we have to show women what the baby looks like in their womb and tell them how the process works before allowing them to get an abortion, does that mean we should teach our soldiers about the culture of the lands we’re invading, and explain to them that the people we want them to kill have families and feel pain, just like Americans?

image

Sure, why not. Fewer civilian casualties would be great.

HOWEVER, GENIUS OP, keep in mind that no human child in the womb, at any stage, will be in any way capable of fighting back against their murderers, unlike the people of the “lands that we’re invading”.

Next time you talk out of your ass, try actually comparing apples to apples.