demoness

1. Is access to healthcare a human right? Yes. If someone's answer to this is "no", they are a danger to themselves and everyone in their society. 2. Is access to education a human right? Yes. As above, if someone's answer to this is a "no", they are a danger to themselves and others, but - this logic is true much more so for the issue of access to education than access to healthcare. Think about it: what is healthcare? I feel it is overly simplified, but also fairly accurate to say it's life and death, for the individual and for society in general. What is education? Education is not something so easily boiled down, but my point here is not about its nature, but, rather, what it symbolizes. While not its totality, education embodies the bequeathing of knowledge to those who have not learned it. Therein lies its true importance: within knowledge lies history, memories, thoughts, feelings, all on a societal scale. If healthcare is a matter of life and death for all living people, education is a matter of life and death for all living people, all people who have died before us, and also the very identities - or "spirit", or "soul", or whatever you like - of all people who exist, have existed, and will exist. To deny others their history, to squander the countless lifetimes spent painstakingly, agonizingly, methodically, desperately gathering and compiling that knowledge - monstrous. Absurd, disgusting, vile; evil so utterly wrong it defies imagination - literally, it is an act that is against, that limits the horizons of the human imagination. 3. Is access to the internet a human right? Yes. The internet is a means of communication and a store of knowledge. Access must be free and equal. 4. Do humans have a right to reproduce? Yes. There is simply no other answer to this question. Any other answer, and things start to go wrong. When we ask ourselves, "who doesn't get to reproduce and why?" we have already caved in to prejuidice and oppression. This remains true no matter how objective we try to be about answering this question, because objectivity is impossible - the exercise of determining which things are "objective", which things are "scientific", and which things are not is already an exercise of power influenced by the subjectivity of those who make the decision. 5. Torture should be... Prohibited under all circumstances. Torture is a tool of domination and oppression. It is sometimes used on an individual level in order to inflict trauma. More horrifically, it is a tool used to suppress political dissent and crush the will of entire populations. As such, it should be categorically opposed. 6. Do humans have a right to voluntary euthanasia? Yes. We do not live in a utopia. Sometimes, some people have problems that simply won't be fixed, even though they should be "easy" or at least "possible" to fix in a reasonable timeframe. People have a right to choose when to die, and the kneejerk fear that they might be choosing to do so when they shouldn't is irrelevant. Consider: it is impossible to prevent suicide. Things can be done to make it less likely, and if someone is for example in a mental hospital, it can be delayed for a very long time. Most of society isn't going to be in facilities like this - therefore, we should facilitate this process so it is as painless as possible while ensuring the people persuing this option have access to the best health professionals and counsel possible. My one categorical exception to this is those who suffer from depression. Severe depression, by its very nature twists the individual's rationality such that life is not only not worth living, it strips away the indivudals ability to imagine life could ever be worth living. As such, it makes informed consent to euthanasia exceedingly difficult. 7. The death penalty should be permissible for the following offenses: Never. Ah, the death pentalty: the refuge of cowards and cynics. It begs the question, what if someone deserves to die? I ask, so what? Why does punishment matter when we seek justice? It doesn't. Two things matter: first, the safety of society, and then the safety of the criminal. Support of the death penalty is also the implicit assumption that people can never or will never change. Such cynicism is as stupid as it is petty. People do not reach some arbitrary point in their life after which there is utter stasis. Moreover, such notions are also useless. The belief that people are to be discarded, simply cast aside and thrown out like so much refuse once they meet your arbitrary criteria... useless. F-, try again and at least put in some effort this time! 8. Abortion should be permissible in the following circumstances: In all cases until birth. Bodily autonomy is a fundamental necessity of human existence. A fetus is part of its hosts body, and as such, its importance as a lifeform is determined by its host. Concerned handwringing regarding when it stops being okay to terminate the fetus is irrelevant. Such concerns do not supercede the necessity of bodily autonomy. 9. Humans begin to gain rights at what point? When an institution of sufficient power bequeaths those rights. "Rights", as a concept, is inadequate, misleading, and ultimately pointless. Rather, there are universal truths that constitute the things necessary for healthy human life. These are a true universal constant. The current concept of "rights" is merely a question of access: the right to education, the right to healthcare, the right to freeom... in other words, access to education, access to healthcare, access to institutions powerful enough to protect one's autonomy. This concept is very limited, stifling when we are discussing ethics. It's great for purely material discussions - someone knows they have the rights of a US citizen when they're naturalized, for example. But we we start speaking of philosophy and ethics, why are we limiting the discussion to access to institutional power? For an issue of such gravity, the scope should be broadened. 10. Is it ever ethical to use nuclear weapons in warfare? No.