Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
User Journal

Journal cagle_.25's Journal: Continuation of Embryonic Rights discussion 16

Journal by cagle_.25
On Oct. 30, an enjoyable discussion of human rights as applied to embryos was attached to this thread:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=166783&threshold=1&commentsort=0&tid=191&mode=nested&cid=13907932

Unfortunately, the discussion was archived right as I posted the last comment. JavaRob, if you're out there and want to continue (or have the last word), the floor is yours!

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Continuation of Embryonic Rights discussion More

Continuation of Embryonic Rights discussion

Comments Filter:
  • I would never argue that pregnancy is a simple inconvenience -- having recently supported my wife during two of them -- nor that we should outlaw abortions without providing a support structure for moms.

    Out of curiosity -- do you support rolling back the current laws in some states that effectively make abortions impossible, because there is no such support structure for the mothers? Would you allow abortions until we solved the problems of women who have no real way out of abusive relationships, etc.? Th
    • This thread will be devoted to the question,

      What is the basis for being a person?

      Resolved: a "person" is a living human organism, where "living" and "human being" are understood in their biological sense.

      "organism" is taken to be synonymous with "lifeform", which is defined in the Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] as:

      In biology, a lifeform has traditionally been considered to be a member of a population whose members can exhibit all the following phenomena at least once during their existence:

      1. Growth, full development, ma

      • Disclaimer: I'm not a debater, and I generally deprecate the debating habit of trying to score "points." The "debate-like" format is really just an attempt to be organized.

        1) First, the identification of "person" with "living human organism" appears to be natural; that is, the burden of proof intuitively rests with any attempt to show that some subset of living human organisms are *not* in fact people.

        2) The common qualities posited as alternate definitions of "person", such as the ability to reason or t

    • This thread takes up the question

      Is it legitimate to claim that human rights are possessed by all persons? Or, must we reconsider the question of human rights every time we reconsider the boundaries of personhood?

      Resolved: Some rights, such as voting or the right to representation, or the right to bear arms, are the rights of citizens and not all people. These rights should be automatically extended only if the definition of "citizen" is extended. But also, there are some rights which extend analytica

      • My first response is that "human rights" don't exist unto themselves. They are a human invention whose general acceptance is essential to a civil society, but an invention nonetheless.

        I would rephrase your subject question as "should we (humans) extend human rights equally to all persons?" -- and an answer must be predicated on an agreed definition of "person".

        Or, must we reconsider the question of human rights every time we reconsider the boundaries of personhood?

        Certainly. The concept of human rights, a
        • My first response is that "human rights" don't exist unto themselves. They are a human invention whose general acceptance is essential to a civil society, but an invention nonetheless. I would rephrase your subject question as "should we (humans) extend human rights equally to all persons?" -- and an answer must be predicated on an agreed definition of "person".

          I've spent several days chewing on this, and I want to strenuously disagree. Human rights are recognized, not granted. While the position that (

          • I'm not a philosopher. I took one course freshman year in college, but it took place at 9AM (after the 4 - 6AM radio slot some friends and I were doing...) so I didn't catch a lot of it. My ideas of how human society works, and how human language works, are based on my own observations... but I find it fascinating, so I do spend time thinking about it. Language is a tricky thing; we need it to process our observations, to think in general terms at all -- but it can easily betray us, creating false dichot
            • Hi again,

              Suppose (H) is true: that human rights are simply a human invention. The inventions of which humans? Suppose we identify a group of humans who have the moral right to invent human rights. Whence comes their right to do so? Who invented that right? Am I morally obligated to accept their inventions? On what grounds?

              Again, you're making the circular assumption that rights are inherent, that they must be given to be claimed. Certainly there's no group of humans with "the moral right to invent human

              • You're right; we can't assume that rights are inherent. But whether they are inherent OR invented, there will be conflict over whether X right is legitimate. At that point, there are only three options:

                (a) X is legit because it is inherent,
                (b) X is legit because it is legitimated by the proper granting organization G, or
                (c) we fight about it.

                (a) corresponds to (R); (b) corresponds to (H); and (c) corresponds to might makes right. The thrust of my argument is that (b) simply pushes the problem up one level:
                • Let me point out that, in fact, (c) is what we do, historically and at present. It's what you and I are doing right now. We do have some common ideas of rights and fairness, but there are sections where we vary (as will almost any two people). Even if you base your beliefs on religious teachings, there are going to be tons of situations where the "right" decision, morally, will be unclear. Do you disagree?

                  I agree. I'm sorry; I think I've caused more confusion than necessary here.

                  My argument concerns the

  • 1)

    If I asked you to choose 5 numbers, would you choose any non-integers? [...] If not, it is still crystal clear that the lack of any such numbers in your list is a failure of imagination on the your part, not a limitation of the scope of the word "number."

    This is exactly my point -- that's how our minds work. We think in generalities and only get into specifics when we have to. This is why it's dangerous to state unequivocally that "all humans should have equal human rights" when that basic gut respons

    • My point was *not* that thinking of adults is a "generality", but an "overspecification." That is, I made the false assumption that "humans" meant "adult humans", without considering the general term "human."

      This is a better way of wording it than what I said. My point is still that the gut reaction we feel (see argument) is based on an incomplete definition of "human". Hence it's not valid to assume this reaction must also apply to something not included in that incomplete definition, and these cases mus
      • But on what basis did they say the "Negro race" was less human? I think that was based on a lot of assumptions that were much easier to make because the slaves were all uneducated (plus some pseudo-science based on appearance). I don't know the details, but I'm guessing that the precedent of Dred Scott and other decisions were finally overturned because there was no scientific support for arguing that they were a lesser race -- and they were perfectly capable of fulfilling the responsibilities that come alo
  • I can make more specific responses to your points above (and read them more closely), but first I want to point out that I already understand that you base your stance on a definition of "person" or "human", and argue that we must grant the most basic human right (i.e., life) to an embryo because it fits your best definition of a person. Then you are building arguments to support your definition.

    But I don't think this provides an accurate model of the problem at hand, so while I've dipped a bit into that s
    • I agree that living is a process. I agree that processes will necessarily have fuzzy boundaries, even if only on the nanoscale. I would suggest that some process boundaries will be clearer than others, depending on the definition of the process and the amount of time that elapses between the start and end of the process.

      So one interesting question might be "how long does it take to die?" In the case of a (poorly treated) diabetic who loses limbs and then ultimately succumbs, the beginning of the dying pr

      • Okay, we're mostly on the same page now, and (I think) I see where we are diverging on this point.

        OTOH, I'm fairly sure I disagree with the statement "life is a process", if taken to mean that a living organism is a process. That seems like a typecasting error with significant implications. Beyond the trivial point that an organism is an object and a process is a sequence of actions, the statement also obscures the point that at any moment in time, it might be legitimate to freeze the clock and ask "what is

Slashdot Top Deals

One man's constant is another man's variable. -- A.J. Perlis

Close