Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (Part 7)

This is the last of a seven part series of posts that come from a paper I wrote.

Because the paper is somewhat long, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it in seven installments.

Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.

Simply scroll down to find the first post.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part VII)

When all else fails with regards to denying fundamental human rights to those who should not have them by use of the various steps of the SLED test, it should be noted that one could still, yet deny those rights by taking one more step.
I call it the C-SLED (cumulative SLED).
In other words, if there is any confusion about whether a being meets any single requirement of the SLED test; we simply state that the being must meet them all. In so doing, we safeguard our method for categorizing human beings against those fancy philosophers and theological thinkers that would seek to undermine our efforts in this area. This step is necessary to ensure the outcome that we desire as a result of SLED testing, namely, that only the right human beings receive human rights. It is important for our method to be able to overcome objections and withstand any accusations of mistaken reasoning by those who would attempt to point out any fallacies in what is clearly a well reasoned, logically coherent argument for dividing human beings and objectively determining the legitimacy of any claim to, so called, human rights.

As you can see, it is critically important to have a method for determining which human beings should have human rights, and I believe that if the human race is going to continue to thrive and evolve, this issue of who should and shouldn’t have these rights is of paramount importance and deserves the type of deep thinking and sound reasoning that you have seen demonstrated here.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide Part 6

This is the sixth in a series of posts that come from a paper I wrote for my English class.
Because the paper is long, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days.
Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.

Simply scroll down to find the first post.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part VI)

The criteria we will hereby use to ensure that many human beings
(the right ones, of course) will be considered non-persons and, therefore, may have fundamental human rights denied them, revolves around

Size, Level of development, Environment, and Degree of dependency.

• Everyone knows “size matters.” I propose that, for the purpose of being able to deny fundamental human rights, we create a minimum size requirement. This is not to say that as a human being grows or shrinks that the number of rights would grow or shrink with her, but simply to establish a convenient and eminently measurable way of determining when these rights should begin to be honored and protected. This also provides a way for a human being to go from being a non-person to being a person if just the non-person in question is able to undergo some change that causes him or her or it to gain the correct size. It would seem rather intolerant of me to deny such a poor soul at least the opportunity to improve his lot in life.

• Everyone has differences in their level of development. For example, I am quite advanced, developmentally speaking, in the area of intellect and reasoning capacity. I am also a fine physical specimen, if I do say so myself. Now then, in addition to meeting a minimum size requirement, it seems obvious that there should also be a minimum level of development that a non-person should have to reach before being granted “personhood.” We wouldn’t want a being of serious mental or physical underdevelopment driving around on our roads, casting votes at election time, performing surgery, delivering mail, or even cleaning toilets for that matter. It seems essential, then, to set some sort of minimum standard for mental and physical development, and who better to create such criteria than me. (However, I would entertain arguments in support of the likes of Peter Singer, Richard Dawkins, Marian Van Court, Charles Murray, Christopher Hitchens, Glayde Whitney, and others, who, through their writings in support of atheism and eugenics have shown reasoning capacity that is equal to or better than my own.)
  
• Environment is one of the least controllable factors for non-persons and one of the most variable. Nevertheless, there should be certain environmental “norms” that are established to determine when any given environment is conducive to personhood. In other words, since environmental factors such as availability of nutrients, clean air, temperature variation, access to care, protection from the elements, and so on, clearly have an impact on other important criteria for personhood such as level of development and degree of dependency, they should be taken into consideration any time questions of personhood arise.
  
• Degree of dependency may be the most important measure of personhood. For, what type of being could possibly be considered a person when that being is totally and utterly dependent on someone or something other than itself for its very life? These types of non-persons are the most socially, emotionally, mentally and economically destructive. For example, would there even be a health care crisis in the United States if medical professionals could only focus their attention on persons and forget about non-persons who don’t have fundamental human rights anyway? Clearly, it is the underdeveloped, the small (in one way or another) and environmentally challenged that seem to use up all our resources, thereby creating some type of inverse entitlement system where persons are discriminated against in favor of the vast minority of non-persons. You can readily see why the dependency issue is so crucial. Its impact is widespread and negatively affects the human beings that are most deserving of personhood.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide Part 5

This is the fifth in a series of posts that come from a paper I wrote for my English class.
Because the paper is long, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days.
Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.

Simply scroll down to find the beginning.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part V)

Now for the fun part; determining which of these human beings we will allow to have these fundamental rights to life and treatment with dignity.
Let’s face it; we don’t really want ALL human beings to have these rights do we? We don’t want to go about granting these types of rights all willy-nilly to just anyone, would we? And we certainly wouldn’t want fundamental human rights to interfere with other important rights.
For example, fundamental human rights should not infringe upon science’s rights to certain types of research and testing in the development of cures for various diseases.
The right of a person to choose is an example of another important freedom that fundamental human rights should not infringe upon.
However, it’s easy to see how a being could pass the taxonomic and genetic tests for “human-ness” and still be unworthy of fundamental human rights, isn’t it? It seems necessary then, to create more categories in an effort to further divide human beings into the types that should have fundamental rights and the types that shouldn’t.
Once again, I have a suggestion. Let’s divide human beings into two groups: those that should have fundamental human rights and those that should not.
We will call those who should have these rights, persons, and those that should not, non-persons.
This will provide a way to move from such all-inclusive terminology as “human being,” to more exclusive terminology, “person.” In this way, we will be able to deny the assumption that human beings have rights intrinsically and replace that assumption with a more workable extrinsic system that only allows for human rights when certain conditions have been fulfilled.
I will describe these conditions with the following acronym:
S L E D.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide Part 4

This is the fourth in a series of posts that come from a paper I wrote for my English class.
The paper is long so, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days.
Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.

Simply scroll down to find the beginning.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part IV)

Since science has given us the tremendous discovery of the double helix and genome sequence, we can use DNA testing as the foundation of our genetic category.

With DNA testing we can now answer many questions. For example, if blood is found at the scene of a crime, it can be determined whether it belongs to the victim or someone else. If there is a suspect in custody, this same testing can help verify or contradict his/her alibi.

Another great example exists in the field of anthropology. When bones are discovered that have testable DNA remaining in them, it can be determined whether they are human or animal. In fact, DNA testing is now being used to confirm and sometimes contradict accepted evolutionary theories regarding pathways from lower forms of hominid species to humans.

DNA testing provides the most accurate way of determining whether a being is a human being or not and is 99.99% effective.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide III

This is the third in a series of posts that come from a paper I wrote for my English class.
The paper is seven or eight pages long, so, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days.
Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.

I encourage you, however, to keep reading (and sometimes re-reading) the subsequent posts (and prior posts) as it will become clearer as you go.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part III)

Two questions must be answered here:

The first is, “What is a human being?” This might sound like a strange question to ask but there is much dispute on this topic as it pertains to the question of human rights. Once we have answered the question about which beings will be classified as human beings, we come to the next question:

“Should each and every one of these human beings be granted these two fundamental rights?” Or, another way of asking the question might be: “Under what circumstances can these rights be denied?” Once again, this may seem like an odd question, since, as we define which beings are and aren’t human beings, one might think that the rights simply fall into place but this also is a topic of debate among people and even in countries with a high value of and commitment to human rights, there seem to be times when these rights are denied.

Let’s answer these questions.
The first question is the easiest to answer in my opinion. I suggest we use the two criteria which scientifically and conclusively leave no room for doubt as to which beings are human beings. Let’s call these two criteria the taxonomic and the genetic systems of categorizing beings. These two systems of classification share much in common but come to their conclusions in different ways.

According to the taxonomic system, a human being is that which is in the kingdom animalia; phylum chordata; class mammalia; order primates; family hominidae; genus homo; species homo sapiens; and subspecies homo sapiens sapiens. According to science, only one type of being fulfills all of those categories at once; a human being.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide II

This is the second in a series of posts that come from a paper I wrote for my English class that I wanted to share.
The paper is seven or eight pages long, but that is too much for your average blog post.
So, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days. Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.
I encourage you, however, to keep reading (and sometimes re-reading) the subsequent posts (and prior posts) as it will become clearer as you go.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide (part II)

However, if we are to continue this discussion of the most effective way to deny fundamental human rights to those who should not have them, it would be critical to understand what fundamental human rights are!
For example, do all human beings have the right to government funded health care? How about clean drinking water? Is it true that all human beings have the right to not be enslaved by other human beings? What about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? What about other rights such as: freedom of speech, democracy, a minimum wage, citizenship in the country of your choice, cost of living pay increases, internet access, a trial by a jury of one’s peers, shelter, clothing, freedom of choice, or dozens of other possibilities?
I have heard it said that the most basic and fundamental human rights are the right to life and the right to be treated with dignity and that if only those are granted, 99% of all the evils of the world would be eliminated. Whether this is true or not, I am not sure, but for purposes of discussion and in the interest of simplicity I will assume that human rights don’t get much more fundamental than that.
Nevertheless, this is not enough, for, while we have come up with some type of workable definition for what the most basic and fundamental of all human rights are, we still have not determined who gets them and how to deny them.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide

I wrote a paper for my English class that I wanted to share.
The paper is seven or eight pages long, but that is too much for your average blog post.
So, I decided to cut it into smaller pieces and post it over the next few days. Consequently, as you read any of the posts on any given day, there may be a contextual flow of thought that is not readily perceived.
I encourage you, however, to keep reading (and sometimes re-reading) the subsequent posts (and prior posts) as it will become clearer as you go.

Please enjoy.

Denying Human Rights: A How-To Guide

It is not true that all human beings have fundamental human rights.
Have you been to Darfur lately? In Darfur, government sanctioned ethnic cleansing occurs daily. Remember a place called Rwanda? Same story there. How about Kosovo? If these place names don’t jog your memory, maybe 1940’s Germany and Adolf Hitler or Russia and Joseph Stalin will be more familiar examples.

But, one might object that there is a difference between “is” and “ought.”
In other words, just because a situation “is” a certain way, doesn’t mean it “ought” to be that way. Someone who holds this point of view would say that while certain basic and fundamental human rights really do exist and “ought” to be honored among human beings, it, unfortunately, “is” the case that they are not granted to all human beings at all times.
This is not a problem with rights but a problem with humans. And it is not whether these rights are or aren’t granted that determines when and which human beings get them. Human beings should have these fundamental rights simply because we are human beings.
This person would also certainly agree to the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic rights, meaning that human beings have intrinsic rights by virtue of being human and that these rights are not somehow added to us from some outside source (extrinsically).

Abortion: What Is It?

Imagine the following conversation between two lady friends as they bump into each other in the grocery store:

“Hi Anita, how are you? I haven’t seen you in months!”

“Oh, I’m getting by. You know me, Lisa, a little morning sickness can’t keep me down for long.”

“I can see that! You’re looking great. When are you due?”

“Only three weeks to go. We’re almost done turning the spare room into a nursery.”

“Wow, that’s great, Anita. Do you know what it’s going to be?”

“Well, initially John and I wanted it to be a surprise but the suspense was just too much. We went in and found out what it was just last week. It’s a girl!”

“Uh huh….and…”

Lisa’s facial expression surprised Anita. It seemed as if she didn’t hear her.

“It’s going to be a girl, Lisa, just what John and I wanted!”

“Ok, ok, if you don’t want to tell me that’s alright. I’ll be surprised.”

“What do you mean Lisa? I just told you twice that it’s a girl.”

“Yeah, but that only tells me the sex. I want to know what it is. You know…..”

“Gosh, Lisa, I guess I don’t know. What do you want me to tell you?”

“Well, for crying out loud, Anita, is it a human being?!?!”

“What else would it be, Lisa, a frog?”

Obviously this conversation is absurd but it shows us something important.
No one really questions whether the unborn is human or not; this is common sense. It also supports a well known biological law that states that life only comes from preceding life, and reproduction occurs in kind (hence, the word, reproduction).
In other words, pregnant elephants give birth to elephants, not mice, pregnant dogs give birth to dogs, not cats, and pregnant humans give birth to humans, not frogs. Or, put another way, what else would it be?

Justifiable Homicide

What is "Justifiable Homicide"?

Here is the definition that I found at the following address:
http://www.criminal-law-lawyer-source.com/terms/justifiable.html:

"Justifiable homicide is the killing of one person by another that is committed without malice or criminal intent. When a person commits a justifiable homicide they are not guilty of a criminal offense. Homicide can be considered justifiable homicide if it is committed in self defense, the defense of others, while trying to prevent of serious crime, and in the line of duty. Capital punishment is also considered justifiable homicide. Preventing a prisoner from fleeing by means of deadly force may also be considered justifiable homicide." So, apparently, there are times when killing someone is not a crime. It also appears that there is a pretty narrow range of circumstances where killing someone is permissible; defense of self or others, preventing serious crime, and capital punishment are identified here.

So, what are some examples of times when it is not ok to kill someone?

For example:

Is it ok for me to kill someone who is interfering with my education or career?
May I kill someone who generally makes my life more difficult?
What if I am simply not ready to deal with someone; may I kill that person?

Seven states report information regarding the reasons women give when asked why they are having an abortion. Other relevant information can be obtained from the Center For Disease Control's abortion surveillance and the Allan Guttmacher Institute.

Following are some tabulated results from the Allan Guttmacher Institute:

Nationwide, the percentage of abortions performed as a result of rape or incest is 0.3%. That’s three tenths of one percent. Abortions performed in response to risk of maternal health or life is 1%. In the case of abortions performed in cases of fetal abnormality, the figure is 0.5%.
About 98% of abortions performed in the United States are elective and performed for primarily social reasons, economic reasons, and birth control.
For example, in a 2004 AGI survey, 25% of the women said the most important reason for having their abortion was being unready. Coming in second place as the most important reason was “can’t afford a baby” at 23% of women. The third most popular answer for the reason for their abortion was that she has all the children she wants or her children are grown at 19% of women. When tallying up all data regarding this question, since the women were able to select primary (most important) and secondary reasons for their abortions, the answers were similar. Among all responses to the question about why the woman was having the abortion, the number one answer at 74% was concern over how a baby would change the woman’s life. 73% chose can’t afford a baby, 42% stated they were unmarried as a reason for abortion and 48% said they were having relationship problems or wanted to avoid being a single parent. 38% said the child would interfere with their education or career plans.

Justifiable?

Hardly!

Atonement

What’s a scapegoat?

Leviticus describes two goats that play a role in the “Day of Atonement.” In this book, Aaron, the High Priest would lay both hands on one of the animals, placing the sins of all Israel on its head. Then the animal would be led out of the camp and into the wilderness. In this way, the goat symbolically bears the sins of the people in their place and is separated from them.

The other goat is slaughtered and its blood is taken behind the curtain of the Most Holy Place and sprinkled on the atonement cover of the ark of the covenant.

So, what does this have to do with atonement?
Glad you asked.

The reason for what happens to the goats is to provide atonement. The word, atone means to make amends (when something is mended it is made whole or one) for a wrong; this action makes the situation whole again or at one. In our case, we are under judgment from God for our wrongdoing and are not at one with Him. If atonement (at one ment) is successful, the relationship is restored, made whole, at one.

Because all people sin and are themselves sinners, God’s justice demands a penalty be paid. Luckily, a scapegoat has been provided to take our blame. That scapegoat is represented in Jesus. The death of Jesus satisfies both God’s justice and His love in that sin gets punished and the people He loves get forgiven.

There have been many people over history (Ghandi, Buddha, Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Theresa, etc.) who have spoken of and taught ways to live better lives, ways to treat others properly in society, and even ways to achieve fulfillment and happiness in this life. The one thing these people can't do is pay the debt that you owe (make atonement) for your own sin. You need a scapegoat that can bear your blame and suffer in your place. Only Jesus can do that. Only Jesus has done that. If you don’t accept the forgiveness that Jesus offers, you don’t get forgiven. It’s that simple.

Definition of Scapegoat: One that bears the blame for others; a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place.

Definition of Atonement: Compensation for a wrong; something done to make amends for wrongdoing, Amends or reparation made for an injury or wrong; expiation.

Have your sins been placed on the head of Jesus?

Existence of God

World's Shortest Philosophical Argument For The Existence Of God

P1. Existence
C. Therefore, God

Anselm would be impressed!

Forgiveness

Forgiveness is often misunderstood.

What, precisely, is forgiveness?

Forgiveness isn’t:

1) Forgiving isn’t forgetting. You may remember the wrong done to you for the rest of your life.

2) Forgiving isn’t saying it’s ok. When someone apologizes to us we usually respond by saying “that’s ok.” but that isn’t really what we mean. When we respond with that phrase, we are not really saying it is ok. What we mean to say is “I forgive you.” Or “I accept your apology.”

3) Forgiving isn’t saying it didn’t hurt. The damage done and the pain caused are completely irrelevant to the concept of forgiveness.

4) Forgiving isn’t saying it doesn’t matter. If we hurt someone, it matters.

Forgiveness is:

When we are wronged, we generally want the person punished in some way. We usually feel that the other person owes us something; an apology perhaps, our dignity, respect, or some object. Maybe we feel that person owes us contriteness or humility. Whatever the case, when you forgive someone, you no longer hold against him/her that expectation.

Forgiveness is the release of a debt. It is a release of the expectation or requirement of restitution.

Forgiveness is undeserved. If someone deserves forgiveness, then the act of granting him/her forgiveness isn’t forgiveness. It’s justice.

Justice is when a person gets the exact punishment that is deserved. No more and no less. It is just.

Mercy is when a person gets less punishment than deserved.

Forgiveness is when a person deserves punishment and gets none.