When Do Human Rights Begin?

[Cal_Catholic]

California members resist Amnesty International slouching toward abortion.

Full article…

 

[DanteAlighieri]

California members resist Amnesty International slouching toward abortion.

Full article…

How cool would it be to have the UN and Amnesty International come out in favor of the rights of the unborn?

That said, I fear that the majority of pro-lifers (in the US, anyway) see both the UN and AI as “liberal” freakshows.

To answer the OP’s question:

Human rights begin at conception - period. They are not granted by any institution, but are a quality particular to all humans.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Rosalinda]

Dante, Normally I would agree with you but with today’s politically -correct pseudoscience conception has been redefined by many to mean at implantation of the embryo in the mother’s uterus. Therefore, we should be careful to say at fertilization which is usually five to seven days before implantation. Life Issues.net covers this topic with numerous articles by doctors and scientists who have carefully outlined all the documentation and textbook resources on embryology. My favorite author there is Diane Irving, PhD. A great site for research.

Every Human Embryology textbook, and every human embryologist, not only identifies the continuum of human life, but describes it in detail; which is to say: At any point in time, during the continuum of life, there exists a whole, integrated human being! This is because over time, from the one-celled embryo to a 100-year-old senior, all of the characteristics of life change, albeit at different rates at different times: size, form, content, function, appearance, etc. Actually, the terminology of Human Embryology is important only in the taxonomic sense. It enables human embryologists to talk to one another. This terminology does not compromise nor change the continuum of human life.
Some falsely claim that “marker events” occur during development that change the moral value of the embryonic human being. But so-called “marker events” occur all throughout life. To devalue the human being by such a false declaration is strictly arbitrary and not based on any science.

From the “Corruption of the science of Human Embryology” Dr. C. Ward Kischer.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_01humanembryology.html

 

[DanteAlighieri]

Dante, Normally I would agree with you but with today’s politically -correct pseudoscience conception has been redefined by many to mean at implantation of the embryo in the mother’s uterus. Therefore, we should be careful to say at fertilization which is usually five to seven days before implantation. Life Issues.net covers this topic with numerous articles by doctors and scientists who have carefully outlined all the documentation and textbook resources on embryology. My favorite author there is Diane Irving, PhD. A great site for research.

From the “Corruption of the science of Human Embryology” Dr. C. Ward Kischer.lifeissues.net/writers/kisc/kisc_01humanembryology.html

Rosalinda (“Pretty Rose” – nice ),

No matter how many semantic landmines lie in the pro-life argument, I think conception is still normally held to be the moment the sperm and egg unite. Implantation is a totally distinct moment. Yes?

Peace,
Dante

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I would think that HUman Right would begin from the moment someone becomes human…and that would be at conception.

 

[Rosalinda]

Let’s not forget this landmark date. From “Human Embryo Research After the Genome” byWilliam P. Cheshire, M.D., an Associate Professor of Neurology at Mayo Clinic College of Medicine.

All that changed in June 2000 when the Human Genome Project international consortium announced that the mapping of the human genome was complete. Publication of the human genetic blueprint has forever transformed the way we think about humanity and, indeed, about early human life. As attention has shifted from the study of single genes to the contemplation of all genes, one fact has become intriguingly conspicuous. **The human embryo, from the moment of conception, possesses a complete and distinct human genome. **
The Human Genome Project, by having published but one example of a human genome, has made the point that even a solitary copy is meaningful. Every embryo of human origin is genetically a member of the human species, is genetically male or female, and, with the exception of identical twins and (hypothetically) clones, is genetically unique. The extraordinarily detailed genetic montage of a new human embryo resulting from the recombination of maternal and paternal DNA forms a living entity that differs from every other entity that has ever existed. Moreover, through the genome the continuity of human genetic identity is maintained throughout an individual’s lifetime. **The genome seated within the zygote, the first cell of the human life span, is the very same genome a person will have in old age. The Orwellian terms “pre-embryo” and **“potential human being” no longer have any scientific validity

cbhd.org/resources/stemcells/cheshire_2002-11-14.htm

This short article is so good I’m printing it up to put on the table of our church foyer so that certain pro-abortion Catholics in my parish family can read it.

 

[Rosalinda]

Dante asked:[sign]conception is still normally held to be the moment the sperm and egg unite. Implantation is a totally distinct moment. Yes?[/sign]

Yes. In classical terms you are absolutely right. Nonetheless, with the advent of human embryonic stem cell research and cloning a lot of people with invested interests want the public to believe we only need be concerned with the welfare of tiny human embryonic individuals after implantation. Drawing the line arbitrarily at two weeks let’s researchers ignore the ethical problems of experimentation on the vulnerable, the weak and the small.

Furthermore, now that human sexual gametes (secondary oocytes and sperm) are at the disposal of scientists ex utero there are several techniques initially developed in veterinary practice for animals and now in IVF clinics which can activate oocytes without sperm. I refer to SCNT (somatic cell nuclear transfer) which is cloning. Than there is the blastocyst splitting technique which is dividing the early embryo in two and creating twins. At the blastocyst stage of development blastomeres (cells inside the nucleus) can be separated from the tiny embryo and since these cells are still totipotent they have the power to reorganize themselves inside the culture of petri dishes into multiple entirely new and distinct embryos. That cloning technique is called blastomere separation. Dante, have you read about parthenogenesis yet? Diane Irving has this to say:

While it is true that in classic parthenogenesis the resulting “embryo” would lack the DNA information usually provided by a sperm and thus not be viable, today it is at least theoretically feasible to reprogram the diploid nucleus (having a complete set of chromosomes) of an oocyte in such a way as to “mimic” that missing paternal DNA and thus produce a viable human embryo. Also, much research has been done on the development of “artificial wombs”, which might also theoretically alleviate some of the classic problems in parthenogenesis.

In other words, scientists no longer even need sperm to “manufacture” human beings. Things just aren’t as simple as they used to be. Human beings can come into existence through many methods of asexual reproduction.

lifeissues.net/writers/irvi/irvi_08wisconsinban.html

 

[vern_humphrey]

If you’ve seen this before, pardon me.

The right to life is the most fundamental of all human rights.

Without a right to life, all other rights are valueless. What good does freedom of speech do a dead man? How can a corpse exercise the right to trial by jury?

The right to life accrues to each of us as a part of our basic humanity. It is as much a part of us as our minds, our personalities, or our arms and legs. It is given to us by no one. It is ours merely because we are living human beings.

There are those who say that “society” or the government decides when we get the right to life. If that is so, then it is no right at all, but merely a privilege, for if the government can grant the right to life, it can surely withhold it. Once you accept that the government has this power, you must accept, willy-nilly that the government can decree some people – perhaps Jews, or Blacks or Catholics – never get the right to life.

If, therefore there is such a thing as a right to life, it must accrue to every living human being. This sets up a simple, three-part test.

 Is the unborn child living? If it were not, we would not be having this debate!

 Is it human? Check the DNA. If it has rabbit or squirrel DNA, then it is not human. But if it has human DNA, it is human.

 But is it a being? Check the DNA again. If it has the mother’s DNA, then it is a part of her body. But if it has its own DNA, then it is a being – a separate and distinct human life.

Very clearly, the unborn has the same right to live as any other living human being. Who denies that, denies the whole concept of human rights.