Many of my comments on your Quick Response #2 (which you link to above) apply here.
The first clear issue is that it is not in any way clear what you mean by 'human nature', 'humanity', or similar. Anyone who agrees with 'human nature plus X' has already fallen into the linguistic trap of accepting something as vague and undefined as 'human nature gets you human rights.'
Can you come up with a clear, unambiguous, objective defintion of what this site means when it talks about 'human nature'? Because it doesn't mean anything at present.
The other issue is that this argument seems to think that human rights are objectivly existing, somehow 'real' things that would still exist even with no humans. But if human rights are an invention - albeit a valuable and important one - then to a certain extent it is not wrong to say that we can to some extent decide who gets them. In fact, many environmentalists argue that a squirrel SHOULD have rights!
If human rights are not real and have no objective existence, then there is no reason to accept that anyone has any rights (including the right to an abortion or any of the underlying rights pro-choice people offer to rationalize it). In more than a dozen states, the majority of the population doesn't accept there's such a thing as "abortion rights". So abortion is now illegal there, and we didn't need your vote to make it happen.
Sort of right and sort of wrong. I said human rights MIGHT be considered inventions, like 'the Brazilian economy' - it's not real in the sense that a person is. However, my point above was that if we have invented human rights (like we invented the Brazilian economy, although perhaps with more forethought) then it is absolutely up for debate who gets them (and to what extent) and what they are. Which of course is not something the article assumes.
I note no response to my questions re human nature....
Josh Brahm, do you think a headless and brainless parasitic twin is equal to a coinjoined/parasitic twin with a head and brain? They are both human organisms at the end of the day. If you believe they should not be of equal value then you are hypocritical to believe “development doesn’t matter.”
The first clear issue is that it is not in any way clear what you mean by 'human nature', 'humanity', or similar. Anyone who agrees with 'human nature plus X' has already fallen into the linguistic trap of accepting something as vague and undefined as 'human nature gets you human rights.'
Can you come up with a clear, unambiguous, objective defintion of what this site means when it talks about 'human nature'? Because it doesn't mean anything at present.
The other issue is that this argument seems to think that human rights are objectivly existing, somehow 'real' things that would still exist even with no humans. But if human rights are an invention - albeit a valuable and important one - then to a certain extent it is not wrong to say that we can to some extent decide who gets them. In fact, many environmentalists argue that a squirrel SHOULD have rights!
I note no response to my questions re human nature....