Human Rights

[TexRex]

However, I do wonder, would it perhaps be smart that if you were looking for a one night stand or a casual fling, might it be a good idea to have a contract or waver? Something saying that all parties consent, are of age and will not hold the other responsible for anything conceived?

Holy hole in a donut, that's hot.

 

[Rallywagon]

Holy hole in a donut, that's hot.

Of course it's not hot, but if you wanna be free from the consequences you gotta get that paper signed.

 

[Danoff]

Of course it's not hot, but if you wanna be free from the consequences you gotta get that paper signed.

Specifically what consequences.

 

[Rallywagon]

Specifically what consequences.

Those consequences you aren't calling consequences. Getting a woman pregnant. Since you pointed out law stuff, by law if you get a woman pregnant, she keeps it, you're on the hook. You know, those consequences.

 

[Danoff]

Those consequences you aren't calling consequences. Getting a woman pregnant. Since you pointed out law stuff, by law if you get a woman pregnant, she keeps it, you're on the hook. You know, those consequences.

That's a consequence of her choice not his. His choice leaves open abortion as an alternative. She chooses to avoid it, and he's responsible for that decision?

 

[Rallywagon]

That's a consequence of her choice not his. His choice leaves open abortion as an alternative. She chooses to avoid it, and he's responsible for that decision?

Legally, yes. That's why I posed the question about the oh so sexy waver.

 

[Danoff]

Legally, yes. That's why I posed the question about the oh so sexy waver.

I see, I didn't realize you were making a point specifically about the current legal situation. Yea I agree.

 

[Novalee]

Three cheers for these fine folks standing up for human rights and against forced evictions and forced relocation.






everyone of them is a hero and leader in my books .


Looks like its working , power to the people .




That gave me chills and hope . Bravo well done bravo.


This shows the actual size of the crowd that showed up to protect their neighbours from being sent out of the country .



Follow up One the guys gave a interview .

 

[Liquid]

Just for those not in the know, the police have nothing to do with the immigration officers looking to evict and deport the two people at the centre of this. Officially, the police were asked by the Home Office, the governmental body responsible for immigration and deportation, to assist in keeping the peace due to large numbers of people who gathered there.

The "Immigration Enforcement" workers are not police officers.

 

[Liquid]

Update:

The two men who were to be deported were released after an eight-hour civil disobedience protest. "Immigration Enforcement" had no say in the matter when, due to the number of people involved, it became a police matter, a matter of public order, and police took over operational control of the situation.

 

[TenEightyOne]

"Immigration Enforcement" had no say in the matter when, due to the number of people involved, it became a police matter

It's more (or less) nuanced than that, this was the Westminster (England) Home Office whose actions were "unwelcome" (Sturgeon's words) in Scotland. Police Scotland became initially involved when a protestor (for that read 'ordinary decent person') crawled under the Home Office van, grabbed on, and refused to leave. As the situation escalated Sturgeon attempted to speak to Westminster but was only able to get as far as "Junior Minister". Amongst other things she wanted, we're told, explanations as to why this enforcement was happening during Eid.

It's an event that started small and quickly grew into a whole symbolic New Scotland .vs. Old Westminster thing. At first reading the Scots come out of this tremendously well, and so they should (imo).

 

[Touring Mars]

Yes, the fact that this happened in the First Minister's constituency during Eid al-Fitr were not one but two major factors in play here.

I think the first point is probably coincidental (at least I'd hope it was), but the latter seems deliberate and very cynical.

Either way, they were sent packing.

 

[Novalee]

But Hamas is the most pathetic excuse for these human rights abuses that have been going on since 1948 by the Zionist settlers .


Here is Paris France , Pro Palestine marchers getting tear gassed for being Pro Palestine ?



But as a counter to Frances failure here is Liverpool is a show of united support .




The paywall on this excellent film showing what went on during the 2014 invasion / punishment by Zionist Israel on Gaza .



Vancouver Canada showing up for human rights

 

[Novalee]

Tons of respect to the good people who have been voicing support for a free Palestine , and for everyone to live in peace in that region.

U.K. just knocked it out of the park

 

[Novalee]

This is a result of colonial violence towards first nations of any country they invade .

https://globalnews.ca/news/7900737/...rens-bodies-kamloops-residential-school-site/

 

[HenrySwanson]

Figure this is the right place for this shameful story

The footballing world has plenty to say about racial injustice.... except when actual hard decisions need to be made. It's going to be laughably insulting if countries take the knee before matches.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Figure this is the right place for this shameful story

I've worked on large projects that have taken place in Arab states using workers from nearby states and, most usually, across Asia. These workers are appropriated in huge numbers, barely fed/watered/cooled and it's impossible to get accurate accident/fatality figures from the sites' "handlers". Lots of people know it happens but nobody can prove it without getting in on the ground and that's impossible through the wealth and connections of the parent companies and their owners.

I don't know how much of that is about race and how much is about simple inhumane economics. I think the colour of the workers doesn't matter as long as they continue to arrive in sufficient numbers for feeding anonymously into the machine.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I've worked on large projects that have taken place in Arab states using workers from nearby states and, most usually, across Asia. These workers are appropriated in huge numbers, barely fed/watered/cooled and it's impossible to get accurate accident/fatality figures from the sites' "handlers". Lots of people know it happens but nobody can prove it without getting in on the ground and that's impossible through the wealth and connections of the parent companies and their owners.

I don't know how much of that is about race and how much is about simple inhumane economics. I think the colour of the workers doesn't matter as long as they continue to arrive in sufficient numbers for feeding anonymously into the machine.

I guess it's debatable the extent race is a factor.

But look at what we are seeing here:

- People living centuries ago being castigated for their involvement (however tenuously) in the slave trade.
- Look the other way and play in stadiums built on the back of modern day slave labour.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I think this is probably the more appropriate place to discuss this.

Are cells. Are organs. Are zygotes, are embryos, are fetuses. Whatever. The phrasing does not make it significant, which is what your argument was.

In a biological sense I think it is significant, as that's where the bioethics will stem from. If we think of humans as units, then everything else will be a subunit of that human, and maybe not as important when taking things into consideration (certainly not when we extend life from fertilisation, or at the other end, save life at earlier gestations with partial ectogenesis).

Circular. The cell is a human because the human is a human when it's a cell. A zygote doesn't become a human, it becomes an embryo if the chemical conditions are right. There is some meaningful significance in these terms too.

Not circular. The cell is that human because that's what was created at fertilisation. The 64 celled embryo is just a later stage in its development. Each one of those 64 cells are alive too, but there is only one organism.

Again, this isn't really relevant presently because of the limitations in place right now, but will become pertinent later on. You can see a good overview of the topic here.

No. A human zygote is "a life". So is arguably a sperm and even a white blood cell. All of those are living. I wouldn't say that it's only "a life" when it develops a brain. A fish is "a life" and a tree. You can come up with criteria that makes it "a human" but where is the meaning? It's all convention or features that are picked as being easily identifiable but not for moral significance.

I honestly do not care if you want to call a zygote "a human". If that's your convention, great, I think it causes moral confusion but it's all labels. In terms of moral significance, yes the brain is what makes us morally significant.

Then we're getting somewhere. I was referring purely in biological terms of hierarchy initially in classifying what "a life" is (which will need to be defined when talking about the bioethics), but the debate has blended in elements of personhood and what we should regard as morally significant so it's become confusing.

For answering the question. I don't have an answer for you off the top of my head, it would take a while to really formulate a coherent position on that, and I don't see how it would do anything but muddy this conversation.

It seems you see hypocrisy in how we treat animals compared to humans. I was wondering if you think we should treat mice used in experiments more like we currently treat human embryos/foetuses, or if it's ethically better to treat human embryos/foetuses as we do mice.

Depends on what you mean by "a human". If you're talking about human cells, yes that's the whole point of what I was writing. But it also applies to other entities as well. Some people that we would both easily consider "a human" don't qualify as worthy of protection from a moral viewpoint - especially many people that we incarcerate. If someone is brain dead and living on life support, is that "a human" in a non-arbitrary way? I honestly am not sure about my position on that. But presuming that it is, it also doesn't qualify as worthy of protection - the plug is ok to pull.

What would be the criteria to determine when a human deserves protection?

 

[TexRex]

No human retains the right to any part of another human's body.

 

[HenrySwanson]

I'm not sure you're understanding.

The next frontier is partial ectogenesis - gestating a....thing....in vitro. That will likely bring the limits of viability of humans delivered by a pregnant person beyond what technology is currently capable of. What no-one is sure of, is what rights these individuals should have outside of the pregnant person's womb - are they technically "born"? Can their "life support" be switched off?

On the other side there is the growth of embryos beyond the current 14 day limit, and the status of those organisms.

Further on from that there could be complete ectogenesis, and what can be done with those gestating in vitro. @Danoff has said something delivered at 21 weeks should be protected by law, even if they shouldn't be strictly morally speaking. How far should the law extend this protection back to?

EDIT: The reason for the move is people could weaponise the language used in the discussion - e.g. "if that's a human life at that stage then abortion is murder". Hopefully we can avoid that by posting in this thread.

 

[Danoff]

In a biological sense I think it is significant, as that's where the bioethics will stem from.

Convnetion.

If we think of humans as units, then everything else will be a subunit of that human, and maybe not as important when taking things into consideration (certainly not when we extend life from fertilisation, or at the other end, save life at earlier gestations with partial ectogenesis).

Convention.

Not circular. The cell is that human because that's what was created at fertilisation. The 64 celled embryo is just a later stage in its development. Each one of those 64 cells are alive too, but there is only one organism.

It is circular. "The cell is a human because the cell is a human organism".

Then we're getting somewhere. I was referring purely in biological terms of hierarchy initially in classifying what "a life" is (which will need to be defined when talking about the bioethics), but the debate has blended in elements of personhood and what we should regard as morally significant so it's become confusing.

The entire discussion is about what is morally significant. The confusing part is to try to introduce a term that has no inherent moral significance and lean on that in a conversation about morality. What I've been trying to get you to do is to articulate, without resorting to convention or definition, WHY this matters. What is the moral significance? You have spent a lot of time and effort to claim that there is something fundamental that happens at fertilization. Most of that argument seems to be that the fundamental thing that happens at fertilization is that a term that you like is defined there. I'd like to understand what it is that is significant about this, and why this is meaningful to a discussion about morality.

It seems you see hypocrisy in how we treat animals compared to humans. I was wondering if you think we should treat mice used in experiments more like we currently treat human embryos/foetuses, or if it's ethically better to treat human embryos/foetuses as we do mice.

Morality is based on cognition. That's why we pull the plug and incarcerate. It's why we chop down trees and experiment on mice. I think from a moral perspective, there is no reason to treat embryos or fetuses as entities that have rights.

What would be the criteria to determine when a human deserves protection?

Cognitive capability. It is why you get to vote when you're 18 and drink when you're 21. Your brain has finally developed into the last of your rights.

 

[TexRex]

I'm not sure you're understanding.

Who?

 

[Danoff]

@Danoff has said something delivered at 21 weeks should be protected by law, even if they shouldn't be strictly morally speaking. How far should the law extend this protection back to?

Let's acknowledge that the answer can't be farther back than 14 days, which is where we are now (though Texas is almost at the same point currently INSIDE THE WOMB, because 14 days of embryonic development is nearly 6 weeks of "pregnancy"). I think the answer is probably that 21 weeks is still too early. But it would require a new legal theory, which is not particularly "pragmatic". Since we're talking about genetic engineering, it is possible that we develop a human-like creature that is much farther along in brain development by 21 weeks. And so if it's to be a thorough new theory, it needs to rest on precisely the cognitive capabilities that we actually care about protecting rather than a line in the sand along gestation time.

Anyway, the practical answer today, not in this hypothetical, is that we protect premature births as any other born baby.

 

[HenrySwanson]

It is circular. "The cell is a human because the cell is a human organism".

As in, given the right conditions it will continue to divide.

A sperm requires an egg to become a zygote.
A white blood cell may eat an organism if it's phagocytic - but it will never grow to be a fully developed human.
Faeces is just....well....that.

I don't really know where we can say during development: that is a human....and before that it wasn't. Is a 38 week foetus a human? Does it become one at birth?

I'm just trying my best to classify it according to the limited knowledge I have regarding embryological development.

The entire discussion is about what is morally significant. The confusing part is to try to introduce a term that has no inherent moral significance and lean on that in a conversation about morality. What I've been trying to get you to do is to articulate, without resorting to convention or definition, WHY this matters. What is the moral significance? You have spent a lot of time and effort to claim that there is something fundamental that happens at fertilization. Most of that argument seems to be that the fundamental thing that happens at fertilization is that a term that you like is defined there. I'd like to understand what it is that is significant about this, and why this is meaningful to a discussion about morality.

From what I've researched, it seems we stop developing embryos at 14 days because of a compromise that looked at the legal and moral rights of the embryo, rather than addressing when life actually begins.

Say we remove all limits on embryo development and decades/centuries from now we have complete ectogenesis. Do we then have to go back to the question of when life begins, or revert back to the 14 day limit when deciding what can be allowed with an embryo being gestated ex-utero.

Morality is based on cognition. That's why we pull the plug and incarcerate. It's why we chop down trees and experiment on mice. I think from a moral perspective, there is no reason to treat embryos or fetuses as entities that have rights.

Cognitive capability. It is why you get to vote when you're 18 and drink when you're 21. Your brain has finally developed into the last of your rights.

Makes sense, but how do you test that in the real world. Should we treat the severely debilitated stroke patient as having the same rights as a tree? Do they have more or less than an embryo/foetus?

Let's acknowledge that the answer can't be farther back than 14 days, which is where we are now (though Texas is almost at the same point currently INSIDE THE WOMB, because 14 days of embryonic development is nearly 6 weeks of "pregnancy"). I think the answer is probably that 21 weeks is still too early. But it would require a new legal theory, which is not particularly "pragmatic". Since we're talking about genetic engineering, it is possible that we develop a human-like creature that is much farther along in brain development by 21 weeks. And so if it's to be a thorough new theory, it needs to rest on precisely the cognitive capabilities that we actually care about protecting rather than a line in the sand along gestation time.

Anyway, the practical answer today, not in this hypothetical, is that we protect premature births as any other born baby.

Again, you can see how complicated this would be to implement, and what a moral mess it could become.

What happens if/when there is an overlap between the extremely premature human and the organism that's been allowed to develop purely in vitro....

Who?

I didn't understand what you meant, and inferred you were talking about the rights of a pregnant person.

Were you talking about the rights of the human being gestated through artificial means?

 

[Danoff]

As in, given the right conditions it will continue to divide.

A sperm requires an egg to become a zygote.
A white blood cell may eat an organism if it's phagocytic - but it will never grow to be a fully developed human.
Faeces is just....well....that.

I don't really know where we can say during development: that is a human....and before that it wasn't. Is a 38 week foetus a human? Does it become one at birth?

What constitutes "a human" depends on what you're going to do with that term. Your purpose will determine the characteristics you're interested in for defining "a human". I would at least say that "a human" needs to be clearly separable from some other entity. Claiming that an implanted embryo is "a human" is somewhat problematic in that it is physically attached to "a human", and you'd need to make an argument that it isn't all one entity - the pregnant woman. And that the two are meaningfully separable for your purposes. Keep in mind that different DNA is present within the woman both well before and during pregnancy. In a very literal sense, it does become "one" at birth. At least differentiable from the (no longer) pregnant woman, if not from the bacteria within it.

If you're using the phrase "a human" in court, you're going to define it differently than a medical journal. And each of these definitions may not be compatible with the definition in a moral discussion.

This is a moral discussion.

Say we remove all limits on embryo development and decades/centuries from now we have complete ectogenesis. Do we then have to go back to the question of when life begins, or revert back to the 14 day limit when deciding what can be allowed with an embryo being gestated ex-utero.

I think this question was answered and you commented on the answer next.

Makes sense, but how do you test that in the real world. Should we treat the severely debilitated stroke patient as having the same rights as a tree? Do they have more or less than an embryo/foetus?

I don't know the important characteristics of your debilitated stroke patient that are needed to answer the question. In terms of individuals with a non-functioning brain, we often harvest their organs for others and let them die. I don't see much reason to put most, if not all, of the stages of embryo/fetal development at or below the cognitive abilities of a human in a vegetative state. But it's outside of my expertise to split hairs on that. I'd need to know more about both vegetative humans and fetal brain development to properly answer the question.

...and I'm completely fine with that.

Again, you can see how complicated this would be to implement, and what a moral mess it could become.

What happens if/when there is an overlap between the extremely premature human and the organism that's been allowed to develop purely in vitro....

I already commented on this. It requires a different line in the sand, but my expectation is that the line in the sand is drawn quite late. Possibly even after 9 months of development - especially if it turns out that a longer gestational period is beneficial to the fetus, but even if that is not the case. I don't consider it to be any messier than today.

 

[TexRex]

I didn't understand what you meant, and inferred you were talking about the rights of a pregnant person.

Were you talking about the rights of the human being gestated through artificial means?

So that was directed at me.

It was a singular statement relevant to nothing other than the revival of this thread and therefore not indicative of any misunderstanding.

I was talking about the inviolability of the human body as a fundamental natural right. Bodily integrity. Bodily autonomy. Individual agency over body. Self-ownership. Whatever you call it, it's a human right.

Does it apply to individuals who may be pregnant? Yes, though that one may be pregnant is circumstantial. Still, that one may be deprived of it--either by coercion or force by an individual or group, or by threat of deprivation of property, freedom (as by incarceration), or death, enforced by the state--on the broad basis that one is pregnant represents a violation of that fundamental natural right.

What of a penalty for violation of the right? Should there be one? Why or why not? If there should be, what? Who is subject to that penalty? If the state--especially one by representative democracy--has violated the right, who is culpable? Are we looking only at the executive body as it enforces law or is the legislative body culpable in its capacity to pass the laws that the executive enforces? What of members of the public who elect legislative and executive members? To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the public may not vote away human rights, and yet in electing state actors who may deprive individuals of their human rights they have done precisely that.

The reason for the move is people could weaponise the language used in the discussion - e.g. "if that's a human life at that stage then abortion is murder". Hopefully we can avoid that by posting in this thread.

The discussion was moved because it was less to do with abortion than with artificial gestation. That's fine. Abortion is the termination of pregnancy and gestation outside an organism isn't pregnancy, whether termination of that gestation is wrong notwithstanding.

The other thread has been shown to exist in part to counter the stupid things people say on the subject, which they may still say.

 

[Keef]

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, the public may not vote away human rights, and yet in electing state actors who may deprive individuals of their human rights they have done precisely that.

Call me an idiot if I'm wrong but if I'm not mistaken we don't actually have defined human rights in the US, correct? We have core values mentioned in the Declaration, and we have many laws based on these values, and we have several clarifications of lesser values based on these core values (obviously a person can't speak, practice, wield assault rifles, or be secure if they don't have a right to exist) but the core value itself isn't actually defined anywhere. We have not defined the right to life and what that entails, thus why the public can get away with voting out a "human right" which logically should be but legally isn't. Except at the UN level, but this isn't the UN it's the USA. Apologies if my brain has replaced a very obvious answer with how to calculate brake energy values after an aborted takeoff but this sounds right to me.

 

[TexRex]

Call me an idiot if I'm wrong but if I'm not mistaken we don't actually have defined human rights in the US, correct? We have core values mentioned in the Declaration, and we have many laws based on these values, and we have several clarifications of lesser values based on these core values (obviously a person can't speak, practice, wield assault rifles, or be secure if they don't have a right to exist) but the core value itself isn't actually defined anywhere. We have not defined the right to life and what that entails, thus why the public can get away with voting out a "human right" which logically should be but legally isn't. Except at the UN level, but this isn't the UN it's the USA. Apologies if my brain has replaced a very obvious answer with how to calculate brake energy values after an aborted takeoff but this sounds right to me.

Certainly there isn't an abundance of specificity and only a few specific rights are enumerated. Unenumerated rights are themselves referred to in the Bill of Rights, specifically the Ninth Amendment:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The public cannot, either explicitly or functionally, vote away human rights. Rights are either recognized and protected or they are not. Rights may be unrecognized by the state as a result of either occasional direct democracy or, more frequently, representative democracy. Rights may also be unrecognized by the state absent public involvement.

 

[Danoff]

Call me an idiot if I'm wrong but if I'm not mistaken we don't actually have defined human rights in the US, correct? We have core values mentioned in the Declaration, and we have many laws based on these values, and we have several clarifications of lesser values based on these core values (obviously a person can't speak, practice, wield assault rifles, or be secure if they don't have a right to exist) but the core value itself isn't actually defined anywhere. We have not defined the right to life and what that entails, thus why the public can get away with voting out a "human right" which logically should be but legally isn't. Except at the UN level, but this isn't the UN it's the USA. Apologies if my brain has replaced a very obvious answer with how to calculate brake energy values after an aborted takeoff but this sounds right to me.

I'm not sure what you're poking at exactly. Are you saying we lack a "right to exist" or a "right to life" in the US? That's the due process clause. Notably the due process clause also includes a fundamental right to "liberty".

Am I to take your argument as meaning that because the constitution is a restraint on the state rather than individuals that this means we don't have an enumerated right? At that point you're arguing about the difference between the state promising to protect your rights vs. the state promising not to violate your rights. That's a bit of an important distinction. We've enumerated the rights you call out far enough to say that the state will not violate them. But we don't go so far as to oblige our government to police those rights in the constitution. It does police those rights of course, but it's not promised in the constitution and that's not the same thing as enumerating or not enumerating the right.