2 Deep PRO-LIFE Questions from an atheist

[Cirdan_XII]

Actually I’ll take the pro aborts side there. Organ donation must be consented to, even if you are dead. Either by a choice you made when you were alive or by your family when you die.

You cannot use organs from a corpse. The donor is still alive (typically in a coma and supported by a machine) when they are removed.

Similarly with organs from a foetus.

You do not have rights to a corpse. Nobody can guarantee that your corpse will remain untouched for all time and in places where there isn’t enough space on cemetries, old graves are exhumed to make space for new and the bones either reburied on a deeper level or transferred to an ossuary. Nobody offers anybody an guarantee that it won’t happen to them some day.

You do have rights to bits of your body while alive. This is why consent is important for organ donation.

 

[goout]

goout:

Are they human rights?

They are human rights because we are asserting them as rights

Got it. Human rights are proper to a human being because “assertions”.
Got it.

Everybody, look. And let it sink in, and think about where this leads. And why we are now on the border of infanticide, and will keep progressing to an increasingly murderous culture.

Because “assertions”.

 

[Gorgias]

So without a working brain, there is no human being.

Hang on a second. This ‘conclusion’ doesn’t follow from any of the information you provided in the first paragraph of your post, other than the bald (unsubstantiated) assertions that “the mind is the product of the working brain” and “the mind is what defines a human being.”

If you want to reach the conclusion you’re asserting, you’ll need to substantiate your two premises.

How many dead people express an interest in anything?

I was once bit by a dead bee…

 

[Elf01]

You cannot use organs from a corpse. The donor is still alive (typically in a coma and supported by a machine) when they are removed.

Even using them for research requires consent.

Where I see the difference is the fetus is receiving ordinary care - the person who needs a transplant is receiving extraordinary care.

 

[Ghosty1981]

The needs that we are willing to fight for are a right to us. So I don’t agree with your splitting hairs here.

You don’t believe in rights, you believe in enforced privilege. You believe that whatever someone believes is their need, and they are able to force it on others, is their right. Ironically, bodily autonomy is not a “need” at all when compared to fetal dependency (people can survive quite well without bodily autonomy, but they absolutely need a provider when they are a fetus), so even this foundation of rights is poorly established.

You can’t argue that bodily autonomy is an inherent right while also claiming that rights are what people are willing to fight for; people are willing to fight for all kinds of things, including the right to enslave those weaker than themselves ("states’ rights folks, come at me). Unless you believe that owning slaves is a right, you are contradicting yourself in claiming that rights are those things that people are willing to fight for.

Honestly, it doesn’t appear that you have any rational grounding for your belief in bodily autonomy at all; your argument is nothing more than sentiment and emotion with no justification other than force. You can’t establish any basis for “inherent rights” with such a foundation, so why use such language at all? Why not just be intellectually honest and say that you feel that a woman’s bodily autonomy trumps the survival of another human being, without resorting to the concept of rights?

 

[Damian]

That’s self evident it seems. Its like asking why is someone being raped different than stealing their sandwich or wasting their time to solve a non existent problem. Goods and services we can reacquire because you’ve just wasted our time of that we’ve invested. Assaulting us a people breaks the social trust of the community that we need as a social creature. It has more a long term psychological impact to us than just stealing my sandwich because it shakes our fundamental social truths we assume to be the case that everyone adheres to. The trust is broken and you need trust for social creatures to bond and if we can’t bond than it breaks us psychologically. Which is what you see in the homeless community.

 

[SeekSalvation]

Sperm and Egg are living cells. Even before they combine to form a human life. At what point was life not visible is the real question?

 

[Damian]

Just not going to agree with what you’re having an issue with here. It all stems from the idea, “treat others the way they want to be treated, as long as that treatment doesn’t interfere with the fundamental requests of others that are universal to the human experience.” Such as, if person A wants to go into a boxing ring and work out their stress for the day, that’s fine as long as there is someone volunteering to enter that ring with them. They have no right to force that request on anyone else.
I really don’t see where you’re not getting this. A “right” to me is the universal common request of a species that transverses any group identity and time period. Such as wanting to live, wanting community, wanting safety, etc. We draw a line in the sand for those “wants” and demand that they be taken as a “right”. How else do you learn what a “right” is from someone without asking them? You just assume that it comes from a list from a deity? or just that you know what your rights are so you assume they are the same rights for everyone else?

 

[Damian]

Just not going to agree with what you’re having an issue with here. It all stems from the idea, “treat others the way they want to be treated, as long as that treatment doesn’t interfere with the fundamental requests of others that are universal to the human experience.” Such as, if person A wants to go into a boxing ring and work out their stress for the day, that’s fine as long as there is someone volunteering to enter that ring with them. They have no right to force that request on anyone else.
I really don’t see where you’re not getting this. A “right” to me is the universal common request of a species that transverses any group identity and time period. Such as wanting to live, wanting community, wanting safety, etc. We draw a line in the sand for those “wants” and demand that they be taken as a “right”. How else do you learn what a “right” is from someone without asking them? You just assume that it comes from a list from a deity? or just that you know what your rights are so you assume they are the same rights for everyone else?
Slavery interferes with the rights of other people, just that culture A has a different understanding of the hierarchy of these rights than culture B. But neither culture denies that these are rights that everyone desires. So the pro-slave culture tries to dehumanize the people they enslave so that they can claim to not have to apply human rights to these humans. “They’re not human but sub-human.”, etc. Or “my slave, my right.” response that the religious genital mutilation community uses on boys and girls still today. We can understand where they have their hierarchy of rights wrong and have discourse about why we believe they have it wrong. Because you can’t know your list is wrong if you live in an echo chamber. But if they still don’t change, then force is required to make the change.

 

[MamaJewel]

Would you agree that the only scenario in which an immediate separation would be considered would be if the health of the twin who would survive is seriously compromised?

No, I do not agree. The team of providers must look at the case being presented because the details of the case will determine the type of care the the twins receive. There could be a multitude of factors that preclude one circumstance over another that would create the opportune time to separate conjoined twins. Human bodies are fragile and the practice of medicine is an art as well as a science, especially with conjoined twins.

 

[MamaJewel]

Yep. Human rights are proper to human beings because of “assertions”. As humans, we are social creatures and we set up our societies through these assertions. It’s what (hopefully) keeps us from anarchy and infanticide and child rape and genital mutilation and medical intervention without informed consent (especially forced abortion by the state), and so on…

Please remember that the rights to bodily autonomy and integrity that give women the right to abortion also give medical providers the right not to perform abortions, even if the state tells them they have to.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

That’s self evident it seems

There are many ways to arrive to that conclusion so it’s important to see the logic behind it.

 

[goout]

Yep. Human rights are proper to human beings because of “assertions”. As humans, we are social creatures and we set up our societies through these assertions. It’s what (hopefully) keeps us from anarchy and infanticide and child rape and genital mutilation and medical intervention without informed consent (especially forced abortion by the state), and so on…

The point is that assertions can’t be the objective basis for human rights. We can make assertions that are focused on objective goods, but assertions are not the foundation for human rights.
For example: white supremacists in the old south asserted that black people are not human beings with full status. Those assertions are not well founded. They lose sight of the objective humanity of every human being.
Assertions are not reasoning. Assertions should be based on sound moral reasoning and evaluation, not separated from it.

Please remember that the rights to bodily autonomy and integrity that give women the right to abortion also give medical providers the right not to perform abortions, even if the state tells them they have to.

That’s not the exercise of bodily autonomy, but rather freedom of conscience that recognizes objective goods.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Just not going to agree with what you’re having an issue with here. It all stems from the idea, “treat others the way they want to be treated, as long as that treatment doesn’t interfere with the fundamental requests of others that are universal to the human experience.” Such as, if person A wants to go into a boxing ring and work out their stress for the day, that’s fine as long as there is someone volunteering to enter that ring with them. They have no right to force that request on anyone else.

The issue is simply that you aren’t establishing the foundation for “inherent” rights, yet you speak of an “inherent right of bodily autonomy”.

I really don’t see where you’re not getting this. A “right” to me is the universal common request of a species that transverses any group identity and time period. Such as wanting to live, wanting community, wanting safety, etc. We draw a line in the sand for those “wants” and demand that they be taken as a “right”. How else do you learn what a “right” is from someone without asking them? You just assume that it comes from a list from a deity? or just that you know what your rights are so you assume they are the same rights for everyone else?

There are many problems with this position . First, you assume that some “requests” are universal without providing a reason for this assumption (you must explain what defines universal, for example, since for every “universal” desire there is a counter example to show that not everyone has this desire). Second, you state that “universal requests” are rights without establishing a reason, and you don’t explain why some universal requests should be held above others.

The bottom line is that you haven’t established any basis for “rights”, and no application of “rights” that goes beyond social contract, so you can’t claim “inherent” rights to anything. You are making claims to a kind of primordial “natural right” without doing any legwork to establish it, let alone explain why one right is more fundamental than another.

 

[Damian]

Please read what was stated beyond what you pulled out here and that should address your concern.

 

[Damian]

I’ve defined what rights are as I understand them and it stands on what was provided. Not going to keep beating this dead horse anymore. Want the last word it seems, so go for it.

First, you assume that some “requests” are universal without providing a reason for this assumption

Universal human truths by just being human. The need for socialization, tribal acceptance, safety, etc. Seriously you seem to be arguing from a point that you don’t understand this is universal to humanity. So I’m not going to bother explaining why that is because I assume you and the audience are not that thick. How to request these needs is taught through our culture. Such as love in the southern america is telling your son to “man up” and to punch each other. Other cultures actually teach boys to tell each other they love each other. Which way is better? Can be born out through actual documentation of the current social scientists. How do we determine the heirarchy of these needs that we all need just because we’re human? Well that comes down to the social discussion and codified through the legal system so we don’t have to reinvent that wheel again. But when we get it wrong, through our ignorance, then we’ll update the results. That’s the last I’m saying about this absurdity that you are wanting to argue over. This really is a non-issue that you are arguing about and it’s wasting my time.

 

[fhansen]

The problem is very simple to resolve: he can’t answer the question. IOW, if not knowing when a fetus becomes human means we can take its life then we should be able to abort a life up to and through birth all the way to old age! If we can’t logically or scientifically say when a fetus should be considered non-human and when it suddenly becomes human with full legal right to life then there can never be a time when we should deny that right. Would you prefer that someone had made that choice for yourself?

In fact, the judge who wrote the decision for Roe vs Wade admitted that the stage of pregnancy chosen for protecting the fetus from abortion was arbitrary.

 

[Ghosty1981]

Universal human truths by just being human. The need for socialization, tribal acceptance, safety, etc. Seriously you seem to be arguing from a point that you don’t understand this is universal to humanity. So I’m not going to bother explaining why that is because I assume you and the audience are not that thick.

I would argue that bodily autonomy is not a “universal human truth” nor a “universal human need” under the parameters you’ve set forth. Bodily autonomy is certainly not a universal human experience, and furthermore there are many cultures that would argue that an insistence on bodily autonomy actually goes against human nature. Ironically, dependency absolutely is a universal human experience, yet you don’t seem to take it into consideration when speaking about human rights.

The bottom line is you haven’t put forth a coherent foundation for “inherent rights”, nor have you provided any reason why the right of bodily autonomy should be favored over the right of dependency. You’ve said a lot of words, but they don’t add up to an argument for your position. An argument for the right of bodily autonomy might be made, but you haven’t presented a coherent one yet, and I don’t see how one could make an argument for an inherent right to bodily autonomy over the right of dependency. You’ve come nowhere close to doing so, at least.

Personally, I do believe in an inherent right to bodily autonomy that is grounded in human nature itself, and it is from the same foundation that I must admit that the right of dependency is more fundamental and takes priority when there is conflict between dependency and bodily autonomy.

Peace and God bless!

 

[goout]

I’ve defined what rights are as I understand them and it stands on what was provided. Not going to keep beating this dead horse anymore. Want the last word it seems, so go for it.

Ghosty1981:

First, you assume that some “requests” are universal without providing a reason for this assumption

Universal human truths by just being human.

Wait. What did you just say?

So if I understand you correctly these universal human truths/rights are not proper to my cat? WHAT?

What about my dead grandmother? She died in '88. Does she have human rights?

How about the tree in my front yard? Human rights?

What assumptions are lurking in the back of your mind when you talk about human rights?

 

[MamaJewel]

The objective basis for human rights is being human. But that basis is ultimately an assertion because of cultural context. The current basis of human rights reflects post- World War II collaborations based on the experiences of that war combined with experiences of the impact (benefits and challenges) of advancing technologies.

Also, I see the question in your response above about your grandma, may her soul rest in peace, having human rights. On a human level, her body has the legal protections to not be disturbed (if she was buried) or handled in a certain way (if she was cremated).