Replies

If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination

Is this the belief, the fear, that causes people to avoid giving meaning to a word they seem to hold very precious--"rights"?

If we codify which humans are human enough to be protected and which are not, we codify discrimination and build a system to justify discrimination

What do you mean by this? Seems pretty clear cut to me.

I'd be willing to give any species which engages in this sort of discussion the designation of 'human.'

I wonder if you aren't onto something here, since surely no other creature we've encountered has this ability. I wonder if we can generalize this statement (beyond "this sort of discussion") to finally identify the critical uniqueness of humans that endows them with rights.

Beavus, since you have so many questions, perhaps you should read Dr. Spitzer's book.
The concept of rights is an ancient one, which (like a fresh reading of the Declaration of Independence) may seem subversive to the current "powers that be" who would rather reduce the definition of "rights" to one of bread and circuses.

In one of my posts to realpatriot71, I explained (using my paraphrase of Dr. Spitzers' analogy and words to summarize a very complex history of thought) that the unique quality of humans - at least as far as we know - is that our species is the only one which yearns for and seems to "know' that there is an Ideal Love, Beauty, Truth, Justice, Knowledge. As I said, even a 4 year old seems to "know" the concept of "That's not fair!" even if he's never experienced justice. And no other species has members who have these sorts of discussions.

I agree that and understanding of the definition of rights is very important. Without the protection of rights, a community is at the mercy of the powerful, however power is expressed in that community.
Rights can be broken into 2 categories, inalienable or intrinsic (those necessary to continue being a human being, such as life, and liberty and which can only be infringed, not given away or taken away) and extrinsic rights that may be more of an agreement of the community and may be changed, or bargained with, because these "rights" do not effect whether or not the human lives and lives free.

Any being that is human - whose genetic heritage (parent) is human, must be assumed to be a human. History is full of the injustice that results when some humans are deemed not "human." The last 30 years are particularly illustrative of this fact. "Pro-choice" advocates speak of "abortion rights" and "right to die" and "quality of life" and the "intent" of the parents. For thirty years, the legal definition of human is "mother chooses to keep him alive." And now, the discussion and acts have moved into the realm of "greater good" or 'for the good of the people in power" and legislatures such as New Jersey are writing laws that will allow the *intentional* creation of human beings for the *intention* of killing the organism and harvesting his or her parts.

Because of the razzle-dazzle of media and power-seekers, any discussion - even in a forum such as this- we have to go back to the ABC's of ethics before we can get to the question at hand.