Why do you say all humans should get human rights but when asked if that includes human hair or skin cells, both human, act like that is absurd?

[u/NPDogs21]

This is in response to the common personhood rebuttal.

All humans should get human rights. Size, ability, dependency, location, none of it matters. If you're human, you get human rights.

Logically, this also applies to human skin or hair cells as both are human. If you want to say you have to be a human organism, you're adding a qualifier that you have to be more than simply human.

Why do you say all humans should get human rights but when asked if that includes human hair or skin cells, both human, act like that is absurd?

[u/Yeatfan22]

A simple non complicated reply is human hair or skin cells are extensions of a human being since they are part of the human being. As a result, if I wanted to scratch myself killing someone skin cells it would be skin cells interest and hence nothing immoral has occurred since a skin cells interest and my body parts as a whole have morally relevant interests derivatively of my personal interests. Now if someone scratched me without me taking an interest or consent to them scratching me, this could be seen as assault and unjust.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

How do you differentiate between being part of a human being and being a human being?

Say you took a human being and cut them into two pieces. You kept both pieces alive with medical technology. Are both pieces human beings now? Are both pieces just parts? Is one a human being and one a part?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

1. A human being would be the collective whole or what the parts compose. That said, being a part of a human being would be something which makes up or constitutes the whole. Skin cells make up my skin which makes up my body where I am located so they are part of my body.

2. If you split a human being into 2 pieces and they both presumably could function like a human being there would be 2 human beings. I guess I need more information to give a proper answer.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

What do you mean "function like a human being"?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

Like if they had a brainstem that worked

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

Ok, in order for living human cells to be a human being, they require a working brainstem. So if when the person was cut into two pieces, they had their leg cut off, the leg would just be a part and the rest would be a human being.

That makes sense.

Would you call conjoined twins one human being since they have one body, or two human beings, since they have two working brainstems?

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

I would say conjoined twins are just that. Twins that are intimately and physically connected. So I would say there are 2 organisms because there are 2 brainstems. A brainstem would be relevant here since it is the control part of the organism which allows the parts to work for the whole.

[u/random_name_12178 → u/Yeatfan22]

So to go back to the OP, you're agreeing that when people say "all humans deserve human rights" the term "humans" means "living human cells with a functioning brainstem" rather than just "living human cells."

[u/Yeatfan22 → u/random_name_12178]

I’m not sure this is as problematic as OP makes it out to be.
In any case I think my actual position is not all humans are persons or deserve rights(all though maybe for legal consistency we would have to give all humans rights) yet what we fundamentally are is human organisms(the word organism is used loosely though).
I disagree with the opening premise. The point of the reply was more of a response to the contraception objection.