What rights do human beings have?

[arunangelo]

What rights do human beings have?
Since God created us, we belong to Him. We, therefore, on our own do not have any right. We, however, have certain values that God instilled in us over which He gives us rights. They include: life, freedom, desire for Him and dignity. God gives us life;therefore, no one should destroy human life and human life must be protected at all stages of its existence. Protection of human life requires appropriate laws, and provision for food, shelter and health care. God gives us freedom to choose, so that we may have His peace and joy by accepting His life of unconditional love. No one should, therefore, deprive another human being of freedom. God gives us a desire to love Him and be one with Him. No one should, therefore, interfere with another person's religious life or worship. God gave us dignity by creating us in His own divine image(Genesis 1:27) ; giving us His Spirit (ability to love) (Ezekiel 36:27); and by becoming our Father (Matthew 6:9). We must, therefore, respect the dignity of every human being and treat them as our own brothers and sisters.

[McCulloch]

What rights do human beings have?
Since God created us, we belong to Him.

How do you know that God created us?

[Zzyzx]

.

What rights do human beings have?
Since God created us, we belong to Him.

I reject the claim that "god created us" UNLESS it is supported by evidence of truth. No evidence to suggest any such thing has been provided.

I reject the claim that "we belong to him". I do not belong to an invisible, undetectable supernatural being that is "known" only through Bronze Age stories and religious dogma.

We, therefore, on our own do not have any right.

I reject this as well for lack of evidence.

We, however, have certain values that God instilled in us over which He gives us rights.

There is no evidence to support the claim that values were instilled by any "gods" or that rights were granted by "gods". Worshipers may CLAIM that their favorite gods did these things, but that claim is unsubstantiated and is not binding upon anyone other than themselves

They include: life, freedom, desire for Him and dignity. God gives us life;therefore, no one should destroy human life and human life must be protected at all stages of its existence.

Human life has value to humans and should not be needlessly destroyed. That is not dependent upon "gods".

Protection of human life requires appropriate laws, and provision for food, shelter and health care.

Agreed

God gives us freedom to choose, so that we may have His peace and joy by accepting His life of unconditional love.

That is a matter of opinion. Some think that Allah does similar things.

No one should, therefore, deprive another human being of freedom.

Organized, commercial religion deprives humans of freedom of choice by establishing rules that limit freedom without being shown to impart benefits.

God gives us a desire to love Him and be one with Him.

Kindly substantiate this statement – to those of us who do not have any desire to love invisible, undetectable "gods".

No one should, therefore, interfere with another person's religious life or worship.

Absolutely correct. NO ONE should interfere IN ANY WAY with another person's religious life or worship – particularly by promoting any particular version of religion – particularly by making promises of "heaven" or "eternal bliss" and threats of "hell" or "eternal damnation" – particularly by using social pressure or coercion.

No one should promote their unsupported opinions regarding "gods" and interfere with anyone's desires regarding their own religious (or non-religious) life. Religious belief should be a personal and private matter – not a matter of commercial promotion or public debate.

God gave us dignity by creating us in His own divine image(Genesis 1:27) ;

In what way is man "created in the image of god"? Do we look like god, act like god, think like god, have power like god???

giving us His Spirit (ability to love) (Ezekiel 36:27); and by becoming our Father (Matthew 6:9). We must, therefore, respect the dignity of every human being and treat them as our own brothers and sisters.

I agree with accepting other humans with dignity (to an extent) and treating them as "brothers and sisters" (to an extent). I do not apply those standards to mass murderers, for example – or to my wife's uncle – Warren Jeffs. Do you?

[realthinker]

A human has a right to its first breath, and that's about it. Until it has its first breath it is not a distinct human. It identity and disposition are subordinate to that of the mother. Without its first breath it's not a living human. Everything after its first breath is negotiable and determined by the culture into which the person was born.

[nygreenguy]

As long as there is a power structure in the world (universe) we do not have any rights. Rights are granted by authority, and can be taken away by authority.

[Zzyzx]

.
Perhaps it would be useful to define what we consider to be "rights".

The OP attempts to credit "rights" to a favored creator god. However, without verification that the god in question actually created humans and granted right, that is just an unsupported conjecture – a personal opinion that has no place in debate.

I suggest disregarding religious definitions of rights since there is little or no agreement between various religion sects on any topic, let alone "rights", and there is no evidence to suggest that any of the thousands of "gods" actually granted any rights to humans.

For serious discussion, are we talking about the rights of citizens in a specific nation granted by its system of law or are we searching for some idealistic "universal human rights"? If the latter, it might be useful to consider the position of the United Nations:

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood. �
—Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)

Human rights refers to the "basic rights and freedoms to which all humans are entitled."[1] Examples of rights and freedoms which are often thought of as human rights include civil and political rights, such as the right to life and liberty, freedom of expression, and equality before the law; and social, cultural and economic rights, including the right to participate in culture, the right to food, the right to work, and the right to education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights

Obviously the rights possessed by humans depend heavily upon place, time, and social conditions (without reference to "gods" except where religion is employed to limit individual rights).

I see no reason to accept definition or identification of "inalienable human rights" as anything other than an idealistic and imaginary concept that does not exist in the real world (in spite of being mentioned in hallowed documents).

[JoeyKnothead]

With all due respect to a couple of the previous posters, who's opinions I respect, I disagree. I am of the mind we are all endowed with rights/freedoms at the get go, and only when society/government dictates are they at risk. If one were stranded on an island, they would be free to do as they please, the island's limits not withstanding.

The idea that rights are granted by government is in direct conflict with the Constution of the US. Government must first decree to take away a right, and can never issue rights. (insofar as they are assumed without a ban)

[realthinker]

With all due respect to a couple of the previous posters, who's opinions I respect, I disagree. I am of the mind we are all endowed with rights/freedoms at the get go, and only when society/government dictates are they at risk. If one were stranded on an island, they would be free to do as they please, the island's limits not withstanding.

The idea that rights are granted by government is in direct conflict with the Constution of the US. Government must first decree to take away a right, and can never issue rights. (insofar as they are assumed without a ban)

It's obvious from the fact that there are differing views from other governments on the rights that the US constitution acknowledges that those are not universal, nor inalienable.

The US constitution suggests that in order to have a government that is not positioned take advantage of its citizens and that guarantees that all citizens within its governance are treated fairly and equally, some basic rights should be recognized. It's a statement of how the US government intends to operate, not an acknowledgment of a higher authority on human rights.

The US constitution starts from the fact that people are to be governed, and before that, that people are social animals. Within the culture from which the US constitution was produced there was a desire for personal empowerment and fairness that placed these values above any interest that the government might imagine. That was a cultural and social decision. It happens to be one that has been so successful that it has been celebrated and emulated around the world. That does not mean, however, that it is anything other than a good way to build a community that cooperates well and enjoys longevity.

The only reason to even discuss rights is with respect to human interaction. Human interaction is according to social customs and government regulation. Without government and without culture there are no rights. The only rights we have are those our culture and our government care to allow us to recognize.

When we care to recognize rights other than those we are allowed we are considered subversive. Our US "founding fathers" were subversives. They were terrorists. They were social deviants for rejecting the monarchy and its social baggage.

[byofrcs]

A human has a right to its first breath, and that's about it. Until it has its first breath it is not a distinct human. It identity and disposition are subordinate to that of the mother. Without its first breath it's not a living human. Everything after its first breath is negotiable and determined by the culture into which the person was born.

I don't agree with the "first breathe" and the analogy I use is one of the responsibility of a aircraft pilot to the passengers.

The passengers can not viably live outside of the aircraft and so the aircraft functions as womb. In the right environment the passengers can disembark.

With a foetus from 24 weeks (maybe less) onwards we have the technology to keep this foetus alive.

So from a certain point onwards the mother becomes a carrier of a viable human being. This point in time is a bit vague but it certainly isn't the scheduled delivery time but can be a premature landing.

I'm personally opposed to late term abortions in this respect especially once the neocortex more or less has got its formation from 20 weeks onwards and I believe that we're conscious as humans simply because of our neocortex.

[realthinker]

A human has a right to its first breath, and that's about it. Until it has its first breath it is not a distinct human. It identity and disposition are subordinate to that of the mother. Without its first breath it's not a living human. Everything after its first breath is negotiable and determined by the culture into which the person was born.

I don't agree with the "first breathe" and the analogy I use is one of the responsibility of a aircraft pilot to the passengers.

The passengers can not viably live outside of the aircraft and so the aircraft functions as womb. In the right environment the passengers can disembark.

With a foetus from 24 weeks (maybe less) onwards we have the technology to keep this foetus alive.

So from a certain point onwards the mother becomes a carrier of a viable human being. This point in time is a bit vague but it certainly isn't the scheduled delivery time but can be a premature landing.

I'm personally opposed to late term abortions in this respect especially once the neocortex more or less has got its formation from 20 weeks onwards and I believe that we're conscious as humans simply because of our neocortex.

The significance you put on the viable fetus is cultural, based on technology and its interaction with cultural norms. Nothing you've discussed here seems to contradict that. Culturally you prefer that a fetus developed to viability is delivered because historically, culturally, it was understood that reproduction was risky both to the mother and the fetus, and low reproductive numbers were a risk to the viability of the community. Medically, based on the recent technology, you know that viability is at a relative point in gestation. Your notion of the rights of birth comes from an out-dated notion of what's best for the tribe. Your knowledge lets you bestow that right on a fetus in the third trimester or so of gestation.

I happen to agree with you regarding late term abortions. But I don't think it's because of any "inalienable" right. At different points in history, in different cultures, with different medical knowledge, the situation will be considered differently.