Arbitrary "positions" are not self-justifying and floating abstractions are not entertaining. I know and understand very well what you wrote and explained why it is wrong, which you dismissed without discussion in a sweeping misrepresentation as nothing but an assertion of "life begins at birth".

No one is arbitrarily "choosing special circumstances" and no one here has suggested a standard of passing an IQ test to have rights. Objectively assessing a person's limited capacities, either medically or in childhood development, is not a "slippery slope", it is required to protect rights within the legal system. It does not mean that "anyone's rights can be taken for a good enough reason", by which you apparently mean that the "reason" is only an excuse.

But our rights are being trampled all the time by those who insist they have a "good enough reason", usually on the false premises of altruism and collectivism. That illustrates the necessity of proper conceptualization and spreading the right ideas, not arbitrarily assigning rights as floating abstractions in the hope of heading off transgressions.

I did not miss the point. I just think that you are completely wrong and intentionally refusing to see that someone can reasonably have a differing position.

Aristotle said that, "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Concepts and principles are objective identifications, not mystically "intrinsic" without regard to context and the source and meaning of the concepts. A fetus is not a "child". What gives the woman the moral power to terminate her pregnancy is her right to her own life.

Now we're getting whimsical.

I believe everyone is missing the point here. From all this talk it seems we should give a person an I.Q. test and if they pass they have rights. The only way rights work is for from the time the child is born. We can say an individual has rights even if they are incapable of exercising those right. When you start choosing special circumstances where someone doesn't have rights you have stepped on a slippery slope and anyone's rights can be taken for a good enough reason.

It is not a statement only saying that "life begins at birth". You missed the whole point of the distinction between a human being as an integrated entity versus merely a "group" of cells, the factual basis of how and why we have rights by our nature as human beings -- not living cells and not when life as such begins, and why the concept of rights cannot be arbitrarily applied without regard to the logical basis of the concept "anytime between conception and self-actualization", depending only on what someone wants to argue with floating abstractions divorced from the meaning and source of the concept in reality.

The logical dependency of the concepts based in fact is not just a "proposal" and the crucial distinction between a fetus still biologically trapped in a parasitical state (not just a "group of cells") versus a new born baby matters. A fetus that has not been born is still a potential regardless of whether birth could have been forced earlier. That distinction is fact, not subjectively up to each individual or to be enforced "collectively by society as a whole" -- which is fundamentally opposed to the principle of the rights of the individual and the concept on which it is based.

Wow pretty long winded to essentially point out that you believe life begins at birth. I have read Man's Rights and for me myself I take the position that life begins at the point that the fetus can survive outside utero without medical attention. Which is very close to the time you propose, since the only real difference is that the fetus is still inside the mother.

Obviously the entire concept of Rights hinges on moral principal and when life begins IS a moral question. That question is answered by each individuals moral position and collectively by society as a whole.

Biologically speaking we are ALL nothing more than a group of cells. It seems that you believe life begins only after a fetus passes through the birth canal but that moments before that it is still only a group of cells. I myself would back that up by a few weeks.

Human beings are not "nothing more than" an undifferentiated "group of cells". Each individual is a self-contained entity consisting of several organs serving distinct purposes, integrated for the function of serving the life of the individual human being as a living entity. The brain is the primary organ for rational thought. That is not just a group of cells.

Our organs are made of cells, functionally combined in different ways, which in turn at an even smaller level are made of molecules, etc. With no integration into a human entity, that is all the cells are. As has been explained on this page and elsewhere on the forum many times, a person comes into existence when he is born. Individuals have rights by their nature as human beings, not because of cells. Groups of cells, fetuses and embryos are potential human beings, contingent on a successful integrated development. The concept of rights does not apply to them.

The concept of rights is a moral concept arising from the facts of actions by moral beings, recognized as entities, in a social context. It has nothing to do with either living or dead cells. As rational beings who require the use of our rational faculty to live, we require moral principles as a guide to choices and actions. That in turn requires moral concepts of how to deal with other people in a social context. It is not about "cells". We start with the concept of a human being as an entity, not the constituent cells and not "anytime between conception and self-actualization".

As Ayn Rand put it, "A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context... Life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life." Please read Ayn Rand's essay "Man's Rights" for a full explanation of the nature, source and purpose of rights as a moral concept.

Groups of cells, fetuses and embryos are potential human beings. They do not have rights. The concept does not apply to them. Nothing has rights only because it happens to be "alive" or "sentient". Do not use "rights" as a floating abstraction divorced from its meaning and necessity as a moral concept pertaining to human, i.e., rational, beings as entities, and do not treat human individuals as "nothing more than a group of cells".

Actually it is since essentially you yourself are nothing more than a group of cells. Unless of course you feel that you are deserving of no rights. Which would make your opinion invalid.

So I ask you one last time, at what point do you think that group of cells become a living human being?

It's not a matter of tossing out opinion. Groups of cells do not have rights. The concept of rights depends on a certain kind of living being. It does not apply to cells.

That and the right to 'sing'?

Well I did say it was arguable across a pretty big spectrum. So at what point do you think that group of cells become a living human being deserving of the Right to Life? I already gave my opinion.

You wrote that "paraplegics and Parkinson's disease patients should have their individual rights. This is why I am in partial disagreement with Ayn Rand." Ayn Rand didn't write or imply that they don't have their individual rights, so what is there to disagree with?

But they don't have additional "rights" as entitlements as a result of weakness. No one does. There are no entitlements to assistance by others as a duty. Rights are moral principles defining freedom of action, not claims on others. There are adults with limited capacities within that small minority who are able to function in at least low level jobs with the assistance of others willing to help them. But they have no right to demand it as a burden imposed on others.

stargeezer "You do have me at a disadvantage since I've not read Ayn Rand's reasoning on the topic of human rights" Understanding Ayn Rand's explanation of rights is basic to discussion here. For the nature and source of rights see her essay "Man's Rights".

I thought I made that clear. However, if I didn't, I meant the right to life is the only right a newborn has in an advanced society.

I wish I was smart enough or educated enough to know what this means.

You'll get no argument from me on that point. Those who value their own hard work and take pride in being their own masters properly eschew the attempts of others to control them. Similarly, they seek to instill in others a desire to similarly take pride and value in the products of their own hands and minds. Those who seek to control others do so because they are lazy and wish to profit from the work of others without providing just compensation - usually through force.

The real question is which comes first: the right or the expression of the right. If one argues that rights are inherent, one's ability to exercise such is moot - the rights still exist and must be protected against infringement. If one argues that rights are subject to expression, however, then one is placing subjective limits of interpretation upon the possession of those rights. To me, the notion that protection of rights must be subject to expression of those rights is a very dangerous road - thus my comparisons to Hitler, Stalin, et al.

"in the womb there is nothing to differentiate and no way to perceive the external world"

I would argue that to be not only an arbitrary condition but a refuted argument on top of that. The unborn can feel pain and detect light and dark. They can (and do) respond to familiar voices. Anyone who has put a hand on the stomach of a pregnant woman to feel the kick or movement of the unborn will testify that they absolutely do respond to external stimuli.

"Before birth it's not a biologically separate entity at all"

An infant in the womb is composed of separate DNA and separate appendages and organs. It has its own blood supply separate and apart from the mother's. Its digestion system is separate and distinct from the mother's as well. It is a completely separate person from the moment of conception - a dependent one to be sure, but distinct. When birth takes place, does the mother lose a portion of her own organs to the new baby? No. She expels what was connected not to her, but to the baby.

Indeed, and the responsibility to do so as well. I was trying to be humorous, and as you often correctly point out, sometimes such humor, particularly sarcasm, gets lost when written instead of spoken.

A person who becomes mentally incapable of making decisions can no longer make decisions on his own behalf.

The newborn infant has been born. That is what separates it.

"[E]ven a preconceptual infant has the power to look around or not look, to listen or not listen. He has a certain minimal, primitive form of volition over the function of his senses." [IOE] That is the beginning of rationality.

She didn't say that explicitly. My problem (and I emphasize that it is my problem, not Rand's) is that I think that people have some rights even when they require substantial assistance to generate enough self-sustaining actions to continue their own lives.

I am in agreement with what you have said, ewv, throughout this thread. I think that is what Ayn Rand meant in her writings, but to get that point requires interpretation beyond what Rand wrote, and I am experienced enough to know that Rand often would disagree vehemently, yet reasonably, when someone misinterpreted what she wrote.

No one can explain every point in exhaustive detail in their writings; a little further explanation consistent with ewv's interpretation would have been helpful.

The answer is very simply addressed with this question: why does the state of advancement of a human being affect their intrinsic right to life? What gives the mother power to terminate the life of a child - even one growing within her?

The attempt to apply the concept of rights to a fetus is to use it as a floating abstraction.