Why doesn't a chicken have a right to life?

All those people are biologically dependent. They need someone to physically use their bodies to care for them and keep them alive. Socially dependent is relying on money, products or services from other people. A person on welfare is socially dependent. A student in public school is socially dependent. An adult child living at home is socially dependent.

 

You made these statements:

Not sure how any of the opinions you shared between makes the two statements any less contradictory.

Most of what you wrote between was to the effect you didn't think discussions of "person," "being," and "value" matter, that the issue for you is whether it is human. I don't see why you would not appreciate my leaving out what you seem to believe is irrelevant.

You seem to believe it is possible to argue when something becomes human, but want only one argument to be considered.

*shrug*




​

 

For one no they are not biologically dependent .. tell me how does a woman use her body to care for a born child, or keep them alive, in a way that no other person could do?

The fact that you use the word someone indicates that you know a newborn is not reliant on a single person to survive, that reliance can be provided by any person.

Socially dependent simply means relying on others to care or provide for you. A newborn requires the services of another person, it does not require the biological connection to survive.

 

Nature places no more value on your life than it does on the life of an earthworm, as far as nature is 'concerned' all living things are equal. Nature does not spare you death because you are a human being .. what a ridiculous notion.

and you point is what exactly .. individuals get killed everyday, the only difference is that you see justification in those killings and not in others ergo your opinion is arbitrarily based.

 

Biology does not claim that a new human is created at conception. The only denial here is your denial of your ignorance of science.

How many times to I have to hear this fallacy. You "assuming" a human exists at conception such that it can be said to be developing does not make that assumption true.

If you want to make that claim you must then provide proof that this claim is true and you have not done so.

A car does not exist in the early stages of product development of a car. Being in a stage of Human development does not mean a living human exists.

Using language improperly does not make your claim true.

According to Science: a living human is a Homo sapiens. Making it into the club Homo sapiens requires memberships in a whole lot of other clubs.

Domain, Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.

The zygote simply does not have the required characteristics.

 

Why is dridder right? All you are doing is making the logical fallacy of "assuming the premise".

Being in a stage of product development does not mean that product exists. At the zygote stage of human development all that exists is the blueprints for a human.

Not one single cell in that blueprint (the structure of the living human in that blueprint) has been created. Not one single solitary cell ?

How can you claim that a brick building exists when not one brick has been laid ? The human structure is not made of bricks. The structure of a human is trillions of cells. How can you claim that a human exists when not one cell in the structure of that human exists.

You will have to do a little better than logical fallacy (assuming the premise).

How can you claim a human exists when not one cell in that

 

Exactly somebody must use their body to care for those people. There are no machines that can feed, ckean and medicate a baby without human intervention. Therefore they rely on someone elses biology. The time before when someone can hand responsibility over to someone else, they are still responsible. A mother cannot kill her child or allow it to die through negligence whilst waiting for child protection to arrive, even if it takes months. A carer can not kill or allow their patient to die through negligence whilst waiting for someone to take over their shift.

You cannot kill because you don't want to use your body to care for someone of whom you have responsibility.

 

Then no one is A human until 25 of age when they are a complete or at least roadworthy car.

So we should be able to kill anyone below the age of 25 if we don't want to care for them. So basically anyone on welfare or relying on the public system for life is fair game until the age of 25.

I said a zygote was A human, not a fully developed human. What I'm saying is we have no way of saying when A human is developed enough to be classed as a person, a human BEING, or a valuable human. But we can say when a new unique member of the human species is created.

A zygote has homo sapien DNA. It is either A homo sapien or has come from a homo sapien. That DNA is also unique and not the same as any previous human living or dead. If the DNA didn't come from any other homo sapien, it must come from a new unique member of the homo sapien species.

 

As they're not using the organs of another person to sustain their lives, why should we?

And we've told you, ad nauseum, that a human becomes a person when it is born.

What are you on about? Nobody is denying that a human zygote is human. It's not bovine, or canine, but human.

What it isn't is a person, like you or me. We use our own organs to sustain our lives.

We're not attached to the inside of another person's body. Our rights do not limit the rights of another person.

Finally, caring for another person does not involve that person becoming physically attached to the carer.

Caring for that other person is not interfering with the bodily autonomy of the carer.

Caring for that other person does put the life of the carer at risk.

And finally, caring for another person unable to care for themselves is entirely voluntary.

 

Hopefully their are no extraterrestrials out there thinking the same thing about us...

Or viruses...

 

That is an interesting response to my quote below:

Did you not read my quote slowly enough? Because from YOUR quote it seems you are saying MY quote is "ridiculous". Do you value a puppy over a baby? Do humans have no particular value above an earthworm in your eyes? Or are you saying nature doesn't design species to value their own species above others?

Perhaps you can clarify because your post wasn't an appropriate response to what I actually wrote.

And this is another interesting response to my quote:

in response to this:

Are you saying its ok to kill individual human life at whim because human life is killed anyway?

 

You really have no clue what you are talking about. The point at which a human exists from a scientific perspective starts long before the age of 25.

A human exists long before the age of 25. You are claiming the zygote is classified as a living human by science which is abject nonsense. You have not given any support for this claim.

Making nonsense comments such as those above does not support your claim.

It is either a human or it is not, fully developed or otherwise. A human is a human being/Homo sapiens.

You are incomplete contradiction.

You are trying to claim that a single cell having human DNA = a human. This claim is false.

Proof: Trillions of cells in your body have human DNA. These cells are not humans.

Science defines what a Homo sapiens is. If you want to claim something is a human then give the scientific definition and show how a zygote meets that criteria.

You repeating your premise over and over again does not do this.

 

It's not up to science to determine when a new 'human' is created. That's an issue for the philosophers and theologians. To my own way of thinking, consciousness and self-awareness have to be present to be human.

 

Because the people who made up the right to life for humans were humans. And being that we're sentient intelligent creatures, we can contemplate our own deaths and the fact that in the extreme majority of situations, we want to be alive and not dead. So we made up another right that says because we're alive and we know it and we're human, we're not just alive, we're exercising our right to be so.

It's one of those natural rights that people invented because they needed something with a higher authority than any human being can achieve. When a human says something, it's just a human saying something. When a bunch of people agree with what a human says, it's still just a human saying something and then a bunch of other humans agreeing. There's nothing that lifts any of it above what humans might decide they want. We're all human, we can't come up with anything that is absolutely above humans because no human is above any other human. And so the need to invent things that were, like gods and natural laws and such, was and still is apparent.

That's all it is. We made up the right to life so we can have something to point to when our lives might be threatened or oppressed. Nothing wrong with that, we made up all the other rights too. But it's all just morality by consensus.

Nobody actually has a right to life that has any higher authority than human law can create. Any weight it is has is put there by humans, and there's no enforcement of said right by anything but humans. And even then, not consistently.

And screw the other 99.99% of life on Earth. They either taste good, are nuisances, we need them for resources, or we shoot them for sport. Even the most compassionate animal lover will still deny the right to life for some living things. Because we can. Because there is no actual right to life.

 

Yes SOMEBODY ie socially dependent, not a specific individual via a physical attachment (Biologically dependent)

No one has said there are, do you often make strawman arguments, for I have not even implied anything like "machines that can feed, ckean and medicate a baby", why are you making up arguments that have nothing at all to do with the issue .. please inform yourself on what social and biological dependence is.

Same question as before, the one you ignored - tell me how does a woman use her body to care for a born child, or keep them alive, in a way that no other person could do? or to rephrase, can any other person care for and keep alive a fetus?

considering the fact a born child can be handed over from the moment of birth, the above is irrelevant.

She doesn't have to, she can give it up at the moment of birth.

See above

Right So I cannot defend myself, including deadly force, if you try to connect your body to mine in order to keep yourself alive, because by your logic I cannot and that is absurd.

You still do not understand what Social and biological dependency is.

social dependence is relying on ANY person to provide for you
Biological dependence is relying on ONE person via a physical connection to provide for you.

 

Yes I read you response and mine was to the "doens't happen in nature and there is a reason for that.", nature has no favourites, as to valuing other life .. life only has as much value as another places upon it, that is true for all people including you.

no that would be a misrepresentation on your part, just because you consider abortion a "whim" doesn't make it so .. what it boils down to is you want to impose what you consider justified onto others.

 

because its a chicken !

 

Because it's better hot out of the grease with some cajun rice and side of french fries.

 

One of the arguments that was used to justify slavery was that, if it was okay to put horses to work, and make them do the will of their owner, why not likewise the Negro, who supposedly wasn't much above the animals anyway...

Any time you start comparing human beings to animals, you begin the process of dehumanization, and it's easy to rationalize taking away their rights...

That being said, I think animals should be treated with much more respect than they are currently receiving. They're not just some commodity and nothing more.

 

""Any time you start comparing human beings to animals, you begin the process of dehumanization, and it's easy to rationalize taking away their rights...""""


YES, when you relegate women to the role of broodstock , you already began the process of dehumanization, and it's easy to think you can rationalize taking away their rights...

 

Instant fail .. comparing abortion to slavery.

 

It's a legitimate argument when people claim that "sovereignty" over the fetus is the sole criteria by which abortion rights should be decided, rather than the actual biology of the fetus itself.

Claiming that a fetus isn't a human 1 second before leaving the womb and has a right to be killed is very similar.

 

Not an argument I use, what others claim is up to them and as you are responding to me perhaps you should address my arguments and not others. I personally don't think that the personhood of the fetus is really that relevant, if it isn't a person then the woman is free to do as she pleases, if it is a person then it must abide by the restrictions that all other persons have to abide by including gaining consent to use her body.

 

Welfare recipients don't have "consent" to collect welfare; people are required by law to pay money in taxes which they used their own body to produce.

 

Because..Fried Chicken!
[video=youtube;le2yE-fpVlI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=le2yE-fpVlI[/video]