The Right to Life (The Proto Criterion)
The Right to Life and the Declaration of Humanity are Inseparable as the Proto Criterion. One may be discussed apart from the other, but they are always intrinsically connected. Very often, I will refer to the Right to Life as the Proto Criterion all by itself, but that does not mean that I consider it separate from the Declaration of Humanity.
The Declaration of Humanity
In order to properly Institute the Human Right to Life, we must formally declare Humanity in the context of the Maximum extent of a Human Individual’s Physical and Biological Lifecycle. Anything less would be subjective, and there can’t be anything more.
Therefore, the Declaration of Humanity comes in Two Sections. The First Section addresses the Reality of Natural Humanity and the Second Section addresses the Theoretical Possibilities of Technological Humanity.
- A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm.
- And also, a Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development resulting from Technology, such as Cloning or any other form of Genetic Engineering utilizing a Majority of Human Tissue.
By far, the most important part of the Declaration of Humanity is the First Section, and it will stand with or without the Second Section. The Second Section will only come into play if someone finds a way to bypass the Natural Processes and creates people Technologically – otherwise it’s a Moot Point.
The Declaration of Humanity doesn’t establish when Life begins, it establishes when a Person begins. Actually, Life doesn’t have a Starting Point – the Sperm and the Egg are already Alive when they come together. A Person has a Starting Point. A new Person begins when a Viable Egg is fertilized by a Viable Sperm, and the Genes of the Mother are joined with the Genes of the Father.
It is an Irrefutable Scientific Fact that you began when one of your Mother’s Living Eggs was fertilized by one of your Father’s Living Sperm; this is The Point at which you received all your Personal Genetic Information. To deny that this event was the Origin of your Physical Being is either Certifiably Psychotic or Patently Belligerent; your opinion would be of no value.
The First Section of the Declaration of Humanity is effectively an Undeniable Truth.
The Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity addresses things that are not much of an issue now, but may be in the future. The Objective Premise of the Second Section is sound, but the use of the ambiguous phrase “Majority of Human Tissue” will provide fodder for debate. The problem with simply using the term “Majority” is that it represents a whole number percentage anywhere from 51% to 100%, and there is a high probability of extreme variation. 100% Human Clones are not the issue, they’re definitely Human, but it may be possible to somehow splice Human Tissue with Animal Tissue and create a Hybrid.
Is a Technologically generated Hybrid a Human Being if it is 51% Human and 49% Chimpanzee?
After much consideration, I’m morally obligated to preemptively acknowledge the rights of Human Hybrids to guard them, and the rest of us, from potential abuse by those with nefarious motives. I figure – if Human Hybrids have all the rights and responsibilities of Human Beings, why create them in the first place? You won’t have the right to manufacture Hybrids to exploit them, and Hybrids that somehow come into being won’t have the right to exploit us; there is no reason to take the time, the money, and the resources to create them. If you can’t treat a Hybrid or a Clone any differently than you would another Human Being there is no reason for them to exist.
Though I can envision leagues of Goat-Men exercising their voting rights for the mad scientist who invented them, I realize that we can severely impact the probability of that ever happening by simply making the practice of creating Human Hybrids and Clones illegal. Unless the entire Human Race is imminently facing Extinction, there is no intrinsic Right to explore this kind of Genetic Technology at all.
Therefore, the Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity will most likely deal with the Consequences of Illegal Activity. Somewhere, somehow, someone will try to make a Human Clone or a Human Hybrid and be successful – and we will be prepared.
For the overwhelming Majority of Circumstances, and that’s extremely understated, the First Section of the Declaration of Humanity will apply. Really, how many people exist, right now, that were created as a Human Clone or a Human Hybrid? Even if 100 Human Hybrids and Clones existed out of the 7 billion people in the world, it would mean the First Section applies to at least 99.99999999% of the population.
Therefore, I have prepared an Official Abridgement of the Declaration of Humanity for when the Second Section isn’t really necessary to present:
A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm.
Otherwise, I am quite scientifically, logically, rationally, and spiritually certain that the full version I have written is a Comprehensive and Valid Declaration of Humanity.
Now let us consider the Right to Life.
The Right to Life
Anyone can draw an Arbitrary Line across the Human Lifecycle and say, “This is when the Right to Life begins,” but it would only be Arbitrary.
This is the definition of the word Arbitrary from the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, 1967,
ar·bi·trary \’är-bə-,trer-ē\ adj 1 : depending on choice or discretion; specif : determinable by decision of a judge or tribunal 2 a : arising from will or caprice b : selected at random and without reason 3 : DESPOTIC, TYRANNICAL
Here is an updated definition of the word Arbitrary from Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary, dated 04/28/2011.
Definition of ARBITRARY
1 : depending on individual discretion (as of a judge) and not fixed by law <the manner of punishment is arbitrary>
2 a : not restrained or limited in the exercise of power : ruling by absolute authority <an arbitrary government> b : marked by or resulting from the unrestrained and often tyrannical exercise of power <protection from arbitrary arrest and detention>
3 a : based on or determined by individual preference or convenience rather than by necessity or the intrinsic nature of something <an arbitrary standard> <take any arbitrary positive number> <arbitrary division of historical studies into watertight compartments — A. J. Toynbee> b : existing or coming about seemingly at random or by chance or as a capricious and unreasonable act of will <when a task is not seen in a meaningful context it is experienced as being arbitrary — Nehemiah Jordan>
Source – http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/arbitrary
The reason I displayed both these definitions is to demonstrate that when something is Arbitrary it is subject to Opinion, and when something is subject to Opinion, it is not Constant. Also, take note of the 3rd definition from the Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary; DESPOTIC, TYRANNICAL. If something such as the Right to Life is determined Arbitrarily it is certainly DESPOTIC and TYRANNICAL.
In order to ensure Justice and Equality for the entire Human Race, it is imperative that the Right to Life be exactly the Same for every Human Being as defined by the Declaration of Humanity. The Right to Life must be an Irreducible Constant, and it cannot be determined Arbitrarily.
Therefore, the only Logical, Rational, and Equitable Application of the Right to Life is for it to preside over the Entire Human Lifecycle as Described by the Declaration of Humanity.
A Human Being shall have the Right to be Alive and Cultivate the Life which they’ve been given, from either the time of their Conception or the point of their Creation, Except when that Human Being has been found Guilty of Murdering another Human Being by the Due Process of Law.
And to compliment the Officially Abridged Declaration of Humanity, an Officially Abridged version of the Right to Life:
A Human Being shall have the Right to be Alive and Cultivate the Life which they’ve been given, from the time of their Conception to their Ultimate Demise, Except when that Human Being has been found Guilty of Murdering another Human Being by the Due Process of Law.
For the Right to Life to preside over anything less than the Entire Human Lifecycle would make the legitimacy of all other rights Tenuous. Since the Right to Life is the Foundation of all other Human Rights, it would be utterly irrational to Base it on the Shifting Sands of Arbitrary Decisions.
To say the Right to Life begins at Birth, rather than Conception, is Substandard because it undermines the Concept of Human Equality by subjugating the very Life of an existing Human Being to the Capricious Will of another. This is not Judicious or Practical. Birth is simply a Stage in the Human Lifecycle after a Period of Development in the Womb. Besides, with the advent of certain Technologies as we discussed in the Second Section of the Declaration of Humanity, there may come a day when Human Beings are no longer “born.”
I understand that a Woman has the Right to Her own Body – we all have the Right to our own Bodies, but only in the context of the Right to Life. None of us has the Right to Kill anyone except in Self Defense. Is an expectant mother going to claim that her unborn child is trying to kill her and she’s only trying to defend herself? Maybe she should issue a Declaration of War against the baby in her womb.
Let’s be honest – the only people who will have a problem with the Declaration of Humanity and the Right to Life are those who want to Kill for Convenience, either through Abortion, Euthanasia, or Genocide; there is no other reason to oppose it.
Both Murder and Abortion are committed because the life of one person supposedly stands in the way of what another person wants.
In fact, since Genocide is the deliberate and systematic destruction of any People who are Arbitrarily deemed Undesirable, Abortion and Euthanasia are merely specific forms of Genocide. Therefore, the primary Justification of Abortion is a list of Emotionally Repugnant Conundrums that would otherwise result in the existence of supposedly Undesirable People.
Consider the Arguments for Abortion:
The Rape Justification – Suppose a woman is raped and she becomes pregnant, doesn’t she have the Right to abort the baby? Suppose a very young girl, a mere child herself, is raped and she becomes pregnant, must she be forced to give birth? What if she is the victim of incest?
The Life-threatening Justification – Suppose that a woman’s health, even her very life, is threatened by a pregnancy, doesn’t she have the Right to abort the baby? Doesn’t she have the Right to defend her own Life or preserve her own health?
Mutation Justification – Suppose that a fetus is grossly deformed and will never have the chance to lead a normal life, shouldn’t the mother have the Right to Abort it?
Economic Justification – Suppose that a pregnant woman doesn’t have the economic means to support a child, shouldn’t she have the Right to Abort.
These are basically the Main Arguments for Abortion, though some others do exist. Notice how each one is presented as a particularly Repugnant Problem that affects the Emotions in order to evoke sympathy for the cause.
Every Con Job begins with the announcement of a Problem, and every Con Artist presents a Solution for their own benefit.
In all these cases Abortion is implied to be the only “logical” Solution to the Problem.
But how would you solve these Problems if Abortion was not an option – not that it was illegal, but that it was both physically and medically impossible to terminate a pregnancy? What if people were forced to deal with the fact that Pregnancy was simply an irresistible Process of Nature that had to run its course, like a rainstorm or a tidal wave? What would you do then?
It’s an Incontrovertible Fact, all but one of these “Problems” could be solved without Abortion.
The only legitimate reason for a woman to have an Abortion is to protect her own Life. If for some reason being pregnant endangers her life, a Woman has the Right to Kill in Self-Defense. We all do, because it is a function of the Right to Life.
The Real Reasons for the vast majority of Abortions, however, are rooted in Psychopathy; a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life. There is a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life during Intercourse, and a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life during Pregnancy. In other words, most people use Abortion simply to escape the consequences of their actions and conceal evidence of wrongdoing.
As stated earlier in the Right to Liberty, the only Ethical Obligation of an Individual is to Revere the Right to Life. Therefore, Sexual Intercourse that is unprepared Emotionally, Physically, and Socially for the Obligations of Pregnancy is a Failure of Consideration and Immoral; it is revealed to be the product of a Callous Disregard for the Sanctity of Human Life, not a product of Real Love. In other words, if you don’t stop and think about what you’re really doing before you have Sex, YOU FAIL! Sex is neither Evil nor Meaningless – it is a Sacred Trust.
A Passionate Regard for the Sanctity of Human Life beginning at Conception is the First Criterion of Morality. If one cannot pass the First Criterion of Morality one cannot claim to be Moral at all.
There is a reason you feel Guilty for engaging in activities when you are unprepared for the Consequences, you violate the Ultimate Criterion of Morality; your body intrinsically knows that you’re trying to deny the Spirit of Life which has flowed through the veins of our Species since the Dawn of Time.
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters. And so I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.” Jesus Christ – Matthew 12:30-32 NIV
Therefore, make sure you are prepared Emotionally, Physically, and Socially for the Obligations of Pregnancy when you choose to have Sexual Intercourse.
If you’re not, Change your Mind.
While I can understand the notion that it is “wrong” to Masturbate or use Birth Control, it certainly isn’t a violation of the Proto Criterion. The Declaration of Humanity indicates that neither a Sperm Cell nor an Egg Cell is a Human Being, and our bodies automatically throw them off all the time.
A Human Being is that Entity at any stage of Biological development Commencing with the Fertilization of the Human Egg by the Human Sperm.
This means that those who use Birth Control or Masturbate are not guilty of violating the Proto Criterion; they do not extinguish the Life of an Existing Human Being. They may be guilty of violating something else, such as their own conscience or someone else’s trust, but they are certainly not guilty of violating the Right to Life. I will leave it at that.
The Proto Criteria are FOR you, not against you. They are not a Darkness that plunges you into Death, they are a Light that illuminates your Life. They are not Prohibitions and Impositions that hold you back, they are Decrees and Guiding Principles that set you Free.
The Proto Criteria are the Safeguards of Your Life, they are Your Protection against those who want to Control and Subdue Society. They are Your Sword, they are Your Power, they are Your Equality, they are Your Justice – they are Your Salvation.