YOU: No, it means that if human rights is dependent on human observation, our concept of rights could change with what we observe, thus making it relative.
What, in anything that I have written, could possibly make you think that? Look, if you are denying the validity of our senses, like all subjectivists must, then just say so. If instead you believe there exists a world independent of all human thought that is absolutely the same for every human and every thing, then understand that observation is the mechanism by which we learn of that world.
So ONCE AGAIN (as if you'll pay attention this time), the FACTS that I presented I labelled as "facts" because, they are from the absolutely true for everything world that you and I can mutually agree to because indeed, through our window to the world, our observations, we see that they are true. If instead I've been hallucinating FACTS1-3, then please tell me.
Finally, as an aside, ALL of EVERYONE's concepts of EVERYTHING are dependent upon observation. Had you been born and raised in an isolation chamber, you would not even have a concept of god. This is the reverse of the REAL (vs. your) relativist's view that instead states that the external world is dependent upon the human mind.
Then how do you know they have this value if you can't observe them expressing it? In this case, how can you say they have any rights at all?
I probably don't know anything about any number of things that I have not observed. As I've said for going on 30 times now, AMONG ALL MY OBSERVATIONS IS INCLUDED FACTS1-3. And I didn't say that anything has rights. I am telling you that every manifestion of rights that you or I have observed are explained by the simple FACTS1-3.
Your entire system is set up on human observation, which is finite.
Again you say this and I cannot extract any meaning from it. What is a finite observation? What is an infinite observation? What does being finite or infinite have to do with respecting a person's rights?
I believe a comatose man, though he expresses no discernible values at all, has the same rights as you and I. I believe this because his rights come from an eternal source - from God. You don't
I didn't say he wouldn't have the same rights as you or I. I said that rights are only relevant from FACTS1-3. When you understand the origins of rights (FACTS1-3), then you see that things have to have the capacity for a rights relationship. That doesn't mean that something without the capacity for rights is unimportant or unloved or unwanted or unequal or unworthy. That confusion comes from your inability to separate values from observed fact, which is the nature of a subjectivist.
So a baby only has rights because someone else imputes it to them? So if no one values the baby then it is okay to violate his/her rights?
The answers to your questions are OF COURSE NO AND HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY GET THAT FROM WHAT I WROTE?
Maybe you are trying for a discussion, but I find it extremely hard to believe. The very language you use is intended to speak past everything I've tried to add to the debate. All I know for sure is (1) that you appear to have no idea what I've been writing about, and (2) what I've been writing about is exquisitely simple. I can try to once again direct you toward a way of thinking that will allow us to debate our respective views, but I can't think of a way of doing it differently that I have already tried. I'm sorry this has all been a waste of time.
Because you said this, "What does matter greatly, however, is the immense value that people place in babies. Rights then may come into play between a person who values the baby, and a person who does not (and sadly, there are such people)."
In the above statement you put the onus for rights on those who care for babies rather than babies themselves. I pointed out the inconsistency of that position through my abortion clinic analogy. Surely you can see, from the above statement you made, why I might take your statement the way I did.
You seem very exercised that I haven't acknowledged your Unalterable Facts 1-4 in awhile. I'll explain again why I think your system of observing values that lead to rights are, at best, incomplete.
Fact 1: humans act to preserve and advance their values. Fact 2: human values (and therefore actions) can and do conflict. Fact 3: humans, among all things we observe in our environment, are uniquely controllable through peaceful persuasion. Fact 4: rights, as they are practically manifested in this world, stem from the truth of facts 1 and 2 and the personal recognition of fact 3.
Rights for an individual are those individual's values for which another individual is willing to alter his behavior in order to avoid conflict.
Given the way you are describing it, I acknowledge the correctness of Facts 1 and 2. Regarding Fact #3, human beings can be peacefully persuaded to respect the values of others. But often they will not be. As I pointed out, the direct evidence for this is the fact that police forces, armies, and other means of violent coercion are often needed to persuade people not to infringe on the values of others. So they can be peacefully persuaded but often choose not to be.
Again, one more hypothetical. If every single human being on planet earth refused to recognize the right of Jews to live, the Christian worldview would still say that these people have the right to live, even if no one on earth acknowledged the value they attached to life.
I have already pointed out at great length that your construct cannot account for those who cannot communicate their values in an observable way (the comatose man or the baby).
Thus your system cannot account for human rights for all people at all times. Rather it bases itself on judgment relative to the finite observational capacity of a human being.