The right to exist
- Thread starter Aldebaran
- Start date
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
A question inherent to the factor that there is no right to exist while nobody who came into existence can avoid existing.
Even when accepting the idea that every individual is unique it is a given that no one can claim to be better than any other, let alone irreplacable.
From which follows that not only every unique existence competes with every other but also with every other that doesn't exist because the niche wherein it would exist is already taken.
This leaves no room for the option to consider to be of lesser value and uniqueness those who don't exist because the niche is taken. While those who do exist were somehow distributed that right over those who don't, while it is obvious that there is no such right possible.
At the moment I don't have a rational solution for that problem, I just came to think of it that it exists
So how would you solve it?
salaam.
Rights are a human/political concept, so I don't think you can isolate this question from humanity and politics.
AFAIK, those rights which do exist, somewhere or other in law, don't refer to the right to exist so much as the lack of right of anyone else to cause us to cease to exist or prevent our existence from coming about.
Murder obviously, and limits on gestational age at abortion (the philosophical basis for which is that the foetus has a "right" not to be aborted once it would have a reasonable chance of surviving independently should it be born prematurely).
Also genocide (which is relevant to the individual right to exist in that the definition of genocide includes preventing reproduction and other items relating to the destruction of family and identity). The right to reproduce is also identified elsewhere in international law IIRC, although it's not clear whether this implies that fertility treatment is a right also.
You can't talk meaningfully about anyone's right to exist before they are conceived because it's utterly impossible to predict which sperm will meet the egg, or indeed if that particular egg will get fertilised at all. You could talk theoretically about the right of a hypothetical child born in a given set of circumstances to exist, and I guess in the case of frozen embryos you could talk about their right to be implanted.*
But I've probably misunderstood the question. This thread makes little sense to me, but I've only just seen it.
*not recognised in the UK - the law insists that the biological parents, or parent if a donor was used, must both agree - the embryo has no rights at all, consistent with abortion law (although the law does not allow a father to force an abortion, but he can force destruction of frozen embryos)
gorski
customised free radical
I think you have now earned the first part of your self-description.
Or, at the very least, it is now obvious that you are of not so good IQ, if not mad.
Failing that, your "mastery of English" is severely suspect, and I say that with some sympathy for your predicament, being a fellow non-believer...
pardon, non-native English speaker...
Moreover, your understanding of what a non-circular argument is should be... well, not "improved" but you should go back to class 1, primary school, age 7 and eventually, given good, hard work, care and attention on your part and serious struggle on the part of the teachers, plus if you're a good boy, you will be able to understand that your starting point in the top post is neither intelligent nor humorous
- just pathetic.
But that is, I suppose, how all mad Arabs view "mastery of humour" in another language... Or Balkanic barstewards, for that matter... Gawd forbid the Americans and the English trying to be funny in another language... or...Well, even you could possibly get my drift by now...
Sure my IQ is all but normal and maybe I am "mad" in the perception of people with your intellect. I can't know that, can I.
Failing that, your "mastery of English" is severely suspect, and I say that with some sympathy for your predicament, being a fellow non-believer...
?
moreover, your understanding of what a non-circular argument is should be... well, not "improved" but you should go back to class 1, primary school, age 7 and eventually, given good, hard work, care and attention on your part and serious struggle on the part of the teachers, plus if you're a good boy, you will be able to understand that your starting point in the top post is neither intelligent nor humorous
mmm... A strange and nonsensical way to admit you have no clue what I talk about and can't even come close to get an idea.
Next...
Well, even you could possibly get my drift by now...
See former comment.
salaam.
Similar threads
