Why do rights exist?

[Moonstruck888]

So?

The human person is still worthy of profound respect. Being usual or unusual is personal and does not change that fact.

Give me one reason why the human being is worthy of any special respect that is not sentimental or ego based.

 

[Leela]

Give me one reason why the human being is worthy of any special respect that is not sentimental or ego based.

Here’s one:
Beethoven’s ninth symphony.

 

[Leela]

I am not belittling liberal society but the view that it is merely the product of human conventions and not based on the immense value of human life. I suppose you regard that as a human convention and not because persons are persons rather merely another biological species…

Right, “the immerse value of human life” is an idea. It is part of that human invention we know as modern liberal society.

When a people do not respect human rights they are not acting in defiance of their intrinsic natures (how could someone do something that is not in their nature?). They are just not being as good as they could be.

I am not enshrining anything but simply recognising the fact that rights are more than intentions which are notoriously fickle and unreliable.

BTW Who are “we”? The enlightened ones? If so enlightenment presupposes discovery rather than convention…

“We” are the humans–the ones capable of self-creation. Our moral growth is not discovery of forgotten truths but self-enlargement as we become better able to take into account the needs of more and more others.

Because, whether you like it or not, rights are related to what we are. Why do we have rights different from those of a worm?

We are what we make ourselves. We are better than we once were and not as good as we could be.

Unfortunately the Nazis and Marxists have demonstrated that we need something more substantial than the best intentions.

What will be needed against the Nazis is police and prisons rather than a philosophical foundation. The only thing that has ever controlled violence is stronger violence in saner hands.

**How **do you determine what rights we need?

It is an ongoing conversation. Arguments usuall involve consideration of generalizability (Kant), consequences (Mills), and human flourishing (Aristotle). But expecting some ready-made rules for settling all possible moral disputes is not a mature view of morality. It is a sign of being too timid and too enamored with authority. It is the desire to pass the buck–to shirk the responsiblity for one’s own moral actions. It is a great responsiblity indeed-- everything we do is part of defining what humanity is–but it is not a responsiblity that can in any way be avoided.

In other words you believe that true moral judgments are **rational **and not based simply on emotion. Like scientific laws they describe the nature of reality, the only difference being that they refer to personal rather than physical reality. If we were merely physical objects scientific truths would be sufficient to cater for our needs…

The difference between scientific truths and moral truths is not that they are concerned with different realities. It is that scientific truths are concerned with how things are and moral truths are concerned with how things ought to be. I suppose both modes of inquiry are rational depending on what you mean by “rational.” Reason itself is one of those things that it subject to inquiry (and is a product of inquiry).

Best,
Leela

 

[grannymh]

Give me one reason why the human being is worthy of any special respect that is not sentimental or ego based.

Please note that I am speaking about the human person being worthy of profound respect.

Sentimental and ego based reasons work well for " worthy of profound respect" even though you changed to “any special respect” which is a lower grammatical qualifier. Furthermore, “the human person is worthy of profound respect” does not depend on one’s world view nor the view out one’s window.

Blessings,
granny

Human life is sacred.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not belittling liberal society but the view that it is merely the product of human conventions and not based on the immense value of human life. I suppose you regard that as a human convention and not because persons are persons rather merely another biological species…

This is where we disagree. The value of life is not an invention but a fact - just like the opportunities which make life valuable. We don’t invent opportunities but discover and recognise them. Nor do we invent society because we are social beings who need to live in an organised community.

When people do not respect human rights they are not acting in defiance of their intrinsic natures (how could someone do something that is not in their nature?). They are just not being as good as they could be.

That implies that there is an objective criterion of goodness…

“We” are the humans–the ones capable of self-creation. Our moral growth is not discovery of forgotten truths but self-enlargement as we become better able to take into account the needs of more and more others.

The vital question is how we are capable of self-creation and self-enlargement. What gives us the power to override our habits and instincts?

Why do we have rights different from those of a worm?

We are what we make ourselves. We are better than we once were and not as good as we could be.

Again the question is how do we acquire this power and achieve such progress…

What will be needed against the Nazis is police and prisons rather than a philosophical foundation. The only thing that has ever controlled violence is stronger violence in saner hands.

You underestimate education and the power of ideas. Why has Nazism virtually disappeared? Most people become more open-minded and reasonable when you explain how selfishness, intolerance and violence are futile and self-destructive.

How do you determine what rights we need?

It is an ongoing conversation. Arguments usually involve consideration of generalizability (Kant), consequences (Mills), and human flourishing (Aristotle). But expecting some ready-made rules for settling all possible moral disputes is not a mature view of morality. It is a sign of being too timid and too enamored with authority. It is the desire to pass the buck–to shirk the responsibility for one’s own moral actions. It is a great responsibility indeed-- everything we do is part of defining what humanity is–but it is not a responsibility that can in any way be avoided.

I agree with you - but responsibility presupposes free will and the power of self-determination.

In other words you believe that true moral judgments are rational and not based simply on emotion. Like scientific laws they describe the nature of reality, the only difference being that they refer to personal rather than physical reality. If we were merely physical objects scientific truths would be sufficient to cater for our needs…

The difference between scientific truths and moral truths is not that they are concerned with different realities. It is that scientific truths are concerned with how things are and moral truths are concerned with how things ought to be.

Persons are not generally regarded as “things”! Materialism is false precisely because it cannot account for personal attributes.

Again this where I suppose both modes of inquiry are rational depending on what you mean by “rational.” Reason itself is one of those things that it subject to inquiry (and is a product of inquiry).

This is where metaphysics and epistemology come in! Reason entails intuition, insight and creativity - which amounts to far more than biological computation!

 

[Gloria1]

It depends on what you consider “right”. If “rights” do exist then there must be “wrongs”. How do we know which one is “right” and which one is “wrong”? there must be a “moral standard” to compare. Where from and who sets these moral standards? that is where God comes in.

To answer your question, Rights do exist because God exists.

 

[tonyrey]

It depends on what you consider “right”. If “rights” do exist then there must be “wrongs”. How do we know which one is “right” and which one is “wrong”? there must be a “moral standard” to compare. Where from and who sets these moral standards? that is where God comes in.

To answer your question, Rights do exist because God exists.

Indeed! In a Godless universe rights are merely human inventions…

 

[Leela]

This is where we disagree. The value of life is not an invention but a fact - just like the opportunities which make life valuable. We don’t invent opportunities but discover and recognise them.

I don’t think of “the value of human life” is either found or made–invention or fact. I think of it as something we either do or don’t do, and I think it is better to do it.

Nor do we invent society because we are social beings who need to live in an organised community.

We certainly do create societies (I don’t even know what the alternative would be here. Who could make societies for us?), and we have created many different sorts of societies. the question is always what sort of society would be best for us to make for oursleves.

That implies that there is an objective criterion of goodness…

I think that some things are better than others if that is what you mean. So? Doesn’t everyone?

The vital question is how we are capable of self-creation and self-enlargement. What gives us the power to override our habits and instincts?

Again the question is how do we acquire this power and achieve such progress…

I don’t think the question “how are we capable?” is a good question. I’m not even sure what it means. What we need to be concerned with is the question “what should we do?”

You underestimate education and the power of ideas. Why has Nazism virtually disappeared? Most people become more open-minded and reasonable when you explain how selfishness, intolerance and violence are futile and self-destructive.

I think that if you believe that someday we will all be so well-educated that we no longer need police that you are being naive.

I agree with you - but responsibility presupposes free will and the power of self-determination.

If all you mean is that we can choose to do something and then do it, then fine. but I suspect that you are talking about some extra added ingredient that we are supposed to wonder about. I see no reason to take sides on such a metaphysical debate since the existence or nonexistence of this extra added ingredient has no consequences that I am aware of. It is enough for me to agree that we can act upon our intentions.

Persons are not generally regarded as “things”! Materialism is false precisely because it cannot account for personal attributes.

I don’t affirm or deny materialism either since I see no value in ontology. I simply note that everything CAN have a material description though I would never say that everything only ever ought to be described in material terms. For example, a lot of times we want to talk about intentions.

This is where metaphysics and epistemology come in! Reason entails intuition, insight and creativity - which amounts to far more than biological computation!

I don’t think of reason in metaphysical terms. It is a compliment we pay to good patterns of thought.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think of “the value of human life” is either found or made–invention or fact. I think of it as something we either do or don’t do, and I think it is better to do it.

You still need to explain why it is better do it.

We certainly do create societies (I don’t even know what the alternative would be here. Who could make societies for us?), and we have created many different sorts of societies. the question is always what sort of society would be best for us to make for ourselves.

And your answer?

That implies that there is an objective criterion of goodness…

I think that some things are better than others if that is what you mean. So? Doesn’t everyone?

You need to explain the reason why you think that some things are better than others.

Again the question is how do we acquire this power and achieve such progress…

I don’t think the question “how are we capable?” is a good question. I’m not even sure what it means. What we need to be concerned with is the question “what should we do?”

That question presupposes knowing what we are capable of. It also presupposes the power to choose between alternative actions.

You underestimate education and the power of ideas. Why has Nazism virtually disappeared? Most people become more open-minded and reasonable when you explain how selfishness, intolerance and violence are futile and self-destructive.

I think that if you believe that some day we will all be so well-educated that we no longer need police that you are being naive.

I specified “most people”…

I agree with you - but responsibility presupposes free will and the power of self-determination.

If all you mean is that we can choose to do something and then do it, then fine. but I suspect that you are talking about some extra added ingredient that we are supposed to wonder about. I see no reason to take sides on such a metaphysical debate since the existence or nonexistence of this extra added ingredient has no consequences that I am aware of. It is enough for me to agree that we can act upon our intentions.

So whether or not we really choose to act in certain ways is irrelevant? That question will certainly arise if you have the misfortune to be accused of a crime… Would you plead that it is of no consequence?

Persons are not generally regarded as “things”! Materialism is false precisely because it cannot account for personal attributes.

I don’t affirm or deny materialism either since I see no value in ontology. I simply note that everything CAN have a material description though I would never say that everything only ever ought to be described in material terms. For example, a lot of times we want to talk about intentions.

Even though you may see no value in ontology you have conceded that intentions do not fit into the materialist’s scheme of things. You implicitly recognise the distinction between persons and things.

This is where metaphysics and epistemology come in! Reason entails intuition, insight and creativity - which amounts to far more than biological computation!
I don’t think of reason in metaphysical terms. It is a compliment we pay to good patterns of thought.

“patterns of thought” suggest that reasoning is like something cut out for you regardless of your wishes. You are just the wearer or bearer!

 

[Leela]

You still need to explain why it is better do it.

And your answer?

You need to explain the reason why you think that some things are better than others.

I wouldn’t know where to start since any attempt to answer the question “why are some things better than others?” would need to presuppose that some things are better than others, otherwise it would be no better to argue that nothing is better than anything else.

That question presupposes knowing what we are capable of. It also presupposes the power to choose between alternative actions.

Yes, the question “what should we do?” presupposes that we can act in different ways depending on our intentions. What is your point?

So whether or not we really choose to act in certain ways is irrelevant? That question will certainly arise if you have the misfortune to be accused of a crime… Would you plead that it is of no consequence?

If someone is pushed out of window and falls on top of a person killing that person we don’t blame the person falling since any person would fall in the same way when pushed out of a window. But we also know that some people do not push others out windows and some do, so it makes much more sense to blame the one who did the pushing. Considerring the pusher and the faller, determining culpability is not a matter of one having more or less of that extra added agreement called free-will. It is just a matter of asking whether another person may have acted otherwise in the same circumstances.

Even though you may see no value in ontology you have conceded that intentions do not fit into the materialist’s scheme of things. You implicitly recognise the distinction between persons and things.

Intentions are not generally counted in the class of things that are material, and of course I can tell the difference between a person and a rock or tree or number or letter.

“patterns of thought” suggest that reasoning is like something cut out for you regardless of your wishes. You are just the wearer or bearer!

It just means that we have certain habits–certain behaviors that another might expect us to do under given circumstances. We can often surprise, but our behavior is not completely unpredictable. We could even say that we are a collection of such habits with the abilitry to surprise ourselves and others.

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t think of “the value of human life” is either found or made–invention or fact. I think of it as something we either do or don’t do, and I think it is better to do it.

You still need to explain why it is better do it.
I think that some things are better than others if that is what you mean. So? Doesn’t everyone?
You need to explain the reason why you think that some things are better than others.

I wouldn’t know where to start since any attempt to answer the question “why are some things better than others?” would need to presuppose that some things are better than others, otherwise it would be no better to argue that nothing is better than anything else.

So either you have no idea why some things are better than others or you think nothing is better than anything else…

Yes, the question “what should we do?” presupposes that we can act in different ways depending on our intentions. What is your point?

According to science all our activity including our states of mind and intentions has physical causes. How then can we can act in different ways depending on our intentions?

So whether or not we really choose to act in certain ways is irrelevant? That question will certainly arise if you have the misfortune to be accused of a crime… Would you plead that it is of no consequence?

If someone is pushed out of window and falls on top of a person killing that person we don’t blame the person falling since any person would fall in the same way when pushed out of a window. But we also know that some people do not push others out windows and some do, so it makes much more sense to blame the one who did the pushing. Considering the pusher and the faller, determining culpability is not a matter of one having more or less of that extra added agreement called free-will. It is just a matter of asking whether another person may have acted otherwise in the same circumstances.

Exactly - and, as I have just pointed out, according to science all our activity has physical causes. So how could we have acted differently from the way we have done?

Even though you may see no value in ontology you have conceded that intentions do not fit into the materialist’s scheme of things. You implicitly recognise the distinction between persons and things.

Intentions are not generally counted in the class of things that are material, and of course I can tell the difference between a person and a rock or tree or number or letter.

Then you are not a materialist…

“patterns of thought” suggest that reasoning is like something cut out for you regardless of your wishes. You are just the wearer or bearer!

It just means that we have certain habits–certain behaviors that another might expect us to do under given circumstances. We can often surprise, but our behavior is not completely unpredictable. We could even say that we are a collection of such habits with the ability to surprise ourselves and others.

Would you agree that a collection of habits cannot be responsible for what it does?

 

[Leela]

So either you have no idea why some things are better than others or you think nothing is better than anything else…

No. It means that if you tell me what things we are comparing, I could argue why one or the other is better, but I can’t argue why it is better to think that some things are better than others without begging the question. But I also can’t argue that nothing is better than anything else without contradicting myself since to assert even that would be to say that believing that is better than not believing that.

According to science all our activity including our states of mind and intentions has physical causes. How then can we can act in different ways depending on our intentions?

Exactly - and, as I have just pointed out, according to science all our activity has physical causes. So how could we have acted differently from the way we have done?

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to predict and control by supposing that all effects have measurable causes. We’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of that methodological pose, but it need be nothing more than a pose. We don’t have to think of it as any ontological claim about what reality really is.

We aren’t always doing science. We aren’t always trying to predict and control based on that particular pose. Sometimes we want to talk about human intentions to explain the behavior of ourselves and others. In the langauge of intentions we have a different methodology where we suppose that humans make choices and could act one way or another in certain circumstances. Again, there need be no ontological claim implied here about some extra added ingredient. We just have different ways of meeting our needs of predicting and controlling human behavior.

Sometimes we aren’t interested in predicting and controlling at all. For example, sometimes we simply love our children or our friends rather than trying to control them, predict their behavior, blame them, or praise them. In such cases we are neither using science or the language of intentions.

 

[tonyrey]

So either you have no idea why some things are better than others or you think nothing is better than anything else…

Why do you need another person to enable you to decide why one thing is better than another? If you have the courage of your convictions your own judgment should be sufficient - without having to know what others think…

But I also can’t argue that nothing is better than anything else without contradicting myself since to assert even that would be to say that believing that is better than not believing that.

If you genuinely believe one thing is better than another surely it is better to believe that it is better! I can see nothing wrong with that.

According to the materialist all our activity- including our intentions - has physical causes. How then can we can act in different ways depending on our intentions?

Exactly - and, as I have just pointed out, according to science all our activity has physical causes. So how could we have acted differently from the way we have done?

The purpose of scientific inquiry is to predict and control by supposing that all effects have measurable causes. We’ve gotten a lot of mileage out of that methodological pose, but it need be nothing more than a pose. We don’t have to think of it as any ontological claim about what reality really is. We aren’t always doing science. We aren’t always trying to predict and control based on that particular pose. Sometimes we want to talk about human intentions to explain the behavior of ourselves and others. In the language of intentions we have a different methodology where we suppose that humans make choices and could act one way or another in certain circumstances. Again, there need be no ontological claim implied here about some extra added ingredient. We just have different ways of meeting our needs of predicting and controlling human behavior.

You are overlooking the conflict between two types of cause. Either **we **make our choices or they are made for us. If all our behaviour has physical causes we don’t come into the picture at all. We are just helpless spectators of events beyond our control…

Sometimes we aren’t interested in predicting and controlling at all. For example, sometimes we simply love our children or our friends rather than trying to control them, predict their behavior, blame them, or praise them. In such cases we are neither using science or the language of intentions.

I too believe that but according to the materialist love is no more than physical reaction which can in principle be explained by science. Behavourism is an extreme example of this interpretation of human behaviour.

 

[Leela]

Why do you need another person to enable you to decide why one thing is better than another? If you have the courage of your convictions your own judgment should be sufficient - without having to know what others think…

I don’t need another person. I don/'t know why you are saying this.

According to the materialist all our activity- including our intentions - has physical causes. How then can we can act in different ways depending on our intentions?

Materialism as a methodology is to look for physical causes, but that doesn’t mean that someone who finds value in that methodology for some purposes must apply it to all purposes.

You are overlooking the conflict between two types of cause. Either **we **make our choices or they are made for us. If all our behaviour has physical causes we don’t come into the picture at all. We are just helpless spectators of events beyond our control…

You are talking abot two different perspectives that may be used for different purposes–for whatever puposes they are useful for. If these puposes are separate there is no reason to resolve some issue of which way things REALLY are. Neither must be thought of as a representation of what reality really is. They are just ways of using reality to do whatever it is we want to do.

I too believe that but according to the materialist love is no more than physical reaction which can in principle be explained by science. Behavourism is an extreme example of this interpretation of human behaviour.

This is just an argument for not using materialism as a methodology in some particular situations like trying to woo a lover.

I don’t know why you keep hammering on materialism with me. I never said I subscribe to materialism as ontology. I have said that I don’t find it necessary to do ontology. I don’t see any forced choice between supernaturalism and materialism as ontology. Materialism is simply good methodology for doing science.

 

[tonyrey]

Why do you need another person to enable you to decide why one thing is better than another? If you have the courage of your convictions your own judgment should be sufficient - without having to know what others think…

You stated “It means that if you tell me what things we are comparing, I could argue why one or the other is better, but I can’t argue why it is better to think that some things are better than others without begging the question.” This seems to mean you need some one to specify what things are being compared before you can decide which things are better than others…

Materialism as a methodology is to look for physical causes, but that doesn’t mean that someone who finds value in that methodology for some purposes must apply it to all purposes.

You are overlooking the conflict between two types of cause. Either we make our choices or they are made for us. If all our behaviour has physical causes we don’t come into the picture at all. We are just helpless spectators of events beyond our control…

You are talking about two different perspectives that may be used for different purposes–for whatever purposes they are useful for. If these purposes are separate there is no reason to resolve some issue of which way things REALLY are.

“If” is the key word. You have not faced up to the conflict that does exist: either we make our choices or they are made for us.

Neither must be thought of as a representation of what reality

really is. They are just ways of using reality to do whatever it is we want to do.

To use reality presupposes that we have some idea of what it is.

I don’t know why you keep hammering on materialism with me.

Because you say you don’t find it necessary to “do ontology”. Sooner or later you cannot avoid having to choose between different concepts of what a person is: a biological machine or a being with free will. You cannot have it both ways…

I never said I subscribe to materialism as ontology. I have said that I don’t find it necessary to do ontology. I don’t see any forced choice between supernaturalism and materialism as ontology. Materialism is simply good methodology for doing science.

Do you regard materialism as inadequate for personal development and relationships? If so you implicitly accept a higher mode of existence as a basis for rights…

 

[Leela]

You stated “It means that if you tell me what things we are comparing, I could argue why one or the other is better, but I can’t argue why it is better to think that some things are better than others without begging the question.” This seems to mean you need some one to specify what things are being compared before you can decide which things are better than others…

Yep, I’ll need you to be more specific than to just ask why is anything better than any other thing. That doesn’t mean that I need someone else to decide for me what is best.

“Materialism as a methodology is to look for physical causes, but that doesn’t mean that someone who finds value in that methodology for some purposes must apply it to all purposes.”

“If” is the key word. You have not faced up to the conflict that does exist: either we make our choices or they are made for us.

I see no conflict.

To use reality presupposes that we have some idea of what it is.

To use reality doesn’t presuppose anything. To use reality is to know reality. There is nothing more that I need to know about a thing than how to use the thing or to put it into relation to other things. That’s all “knowing” means.

Because you say you don’t find it necessary to “do ontology”. Sooner or later you cannot avoid having to choose between different concepts of what a person is: a biological machine or a being with free will. You cannot have it both ways…

I can choose different concepts for different purposes. I can have it both ways and lots of other ways. Trying to understand meaning and pupose by viewing a human as a biological machine is to use the wrong tool for the job. On the other hand, viewing a human as a biological machine may be a very good tool for trying to cure illness.

Do you regard materialism as inadequate for personal development and relationships?

I do think that there are much better ways to talk about many of the things we want to talk about than with the language of materialism such as values.

If so you implicitly accept a higher mode of existence as a basis for rights…

I don’t concern myself with the notion of “a basis for rights” or any other talk about philosophical foundations.

 

[tonyrey]

You stated “It means that if you tell me what things we are comparing, I could argue why one or the other is better, but I can’t argue why it is better to think that some things are better than others without begging the question.” This seems to mean you need some one to specify what things are being compared before you can decide which things are better than others…

This question arose because you rejected my statement that the value of life is not an invention but a fact. You asserted that it is “something we either do or don’t do, and I think it is better to do it.” I then asked you why it is better “to do it” - which can hardly be more specific since it refers to your own assertion.

“If” is the key word. You have not faced up to the conflict that does exist: either we make our choices or they are made for us.

I see no conflict.

If our choices are the result of physical causes we are just cogs in the machine of nature.
Nothing we think or decide makes any difference because physical causes have already determined what we think and decide. Our thoughts and decisions are beyond our control and self-control is an illusion.

To use reality presupposes that we have some idea of what it is.

To use reality doesn’t presuppose anything. To use reality is to know reality. There is nothing more that I need to know about a thing than how to use the thing or to put it into relation to other things. That’s all “knowing” means.
We can never know reality directly. We make inferences from our perceptions about what exists but we know only what we are thinking, feeling and perceiving. We then learn to use things as the result of induction and deduction from their inferred qualities. We cannot use things unless we have some idea of their characteristics. If we have not inferred that glass objects break easily we cannot use them properly.

Because you say you don’t find it necessary to “do ontology”. Sooner or later you cannot avoid having to choose between different concepts of what a person is: a biological machine or a being with free will. You cannot have it both ways…

I can choose different concepts for different purposes. I can have it both ways and lots of other ways.

You think you can have it both ways but you are mistaken. A biological machine cannot have free will and responsibility no matter how hard you try to endow it with free will and responsibility. Either a person is a biological machine or a person is more than a biological machine…

Trying to understand meaning and pupose by viewing a human as a biological machine is to use the wrong tool for the job. On the other hand, viewing a human as a biological machine may be a very good tool for trying to cure illness.

Modern medicine is holistic and recognises that a person is more than a biological machine.

Do you regard materialism as inadequate for personal development and relationships?

I do think that there are much better ways to talk about many of the things we want to talk about than with the language of materialism such as values.

How do you obtain values?

If so you implicitly accept a higher mode of existence as a basis for rights…

I don’t concern myself with the notion of “a basis for rights” or any other talk about philosophical foundations.

So when it comes to questions like abortion or euthanasia how do you determine whether the individual has a right to life or not?

 

[grannymh]

While it is well and good to discuss all kinds of philosophies and their implications for each individual, would that imply that rights are subjective depending on one’s philosophy?

It seems to me that the basis for human rights has to be some kind of universal truth based on something which fits the basic description for objective. It is my humble observation that the basis for human rights would be the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

 

[tonyrey]

While it is well and good to discuss all kinds of philosophies and their implications for each individual, would that imply that rights are subjective depending on one’s philosophy?

It seems to me that the basis for human rights has to be some kind of universal truth based on something which fits the basic description for objective. It is my humble observation that the basis for human rights would be the objective truth that the human person is worthy of profound respect.

Blessings,
granny

The human person is worthy of profound respect from the moment of conception.

I agree with you. A human person is worthy of profound respect because he or she has been created by God with immense opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment both in this life and after death.

 

[grannymh]

I agree with you. A human person is worthy of profound respect because he or she has been created by God with immense opportunities for development, creativity, love, enjoyment and fulfilment both in this life and after death.

Do you realize that non-believers can also accept that a human person is worthy of profound respect? This is one reason why this simple statement can serve as the universal basis for human rights.