appolose said:
Rath said:
appolose said:
So, if half the population considered a certain group of people not human, the other half is just supposed to allow them to do whatever they want to that group of people? Reminds me of slavery.
|
They are very different situations.
All different kinds of people, negroes, caucasians, orientals or aboriginals, display self awareness, consciousness, the ability to feel pain, emotions and many other things that foetuses simply don't. The problem is that there is a lack of agreement on when people become people. I personally take the point of where they gain the ability (or at least the necessary pieces to have the ability) to feel pain, as it is the first of the things that I consider to make up a person that develops.
|
This is an argument about what constitutes a human being, but what we were originally talking about was the situation my above question proposed. What I'm saying is, I think you've switched subjects (pardon my bluntness).
|
The situation your above question proposed? You mean that they can do whatever they want to a group of people as long as its a majority?
What I was pointing out is that it would only be acceptable if they were not demonstatably a person (and hence don't automatically qualify for human rights), the only other situation I can think of where somebody is not demonstatably a person is in the case of being either brain dead or in a permanent vegatative state.
Hence the subject you brought up, slavery, is not acceptable because the slaves were demonstatably people with all the things that make people people.
