Toby Black

Full-time Cymro 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿, Part-Time Brit 🇬🇧, He/Him

Not one or multiple Chicken Wings.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@BadMojo9 @leftsidehist Totally not

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide or as a punishment for sufficiently serious crimes, or once they reach a point that despite being technically biologically alive, their capacity to exert control over themselves physically or mentally have long since passed.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Humans beings can exist without an eternal non-removable right to life.

Said right is recognised as being able to be stripped under a variety of circumstances, such as being an immediate threat to others in a way in which they can't be easily detained or prevented,

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Why not?

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Farmer_Shane91 @djneyoru It's not my thing personally, but if we follow your conclusion to it's logical extreme...

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide They are a human being, but often someone with limited personhood and, therefore, limited rights, allowing treatment and infringement on their autonomy, independence and personal control which would be unacceptable to do to others.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Because if we reduce humanity to merely DNA, then both tumours and corpses are human beings.

I don't think DNA alone is enough for someone to be a human being, but apparently that's the defining characteristic for yourself.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Even in some cases yes, but when those protections are maintained, they are done so because of the limited, but still existent personhood of the individual in question, not merely because they have living human DNA.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide and this is recognised within the law for a reason.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide The provision of a mercy kill to something which is no longer a person with the consent of family and doctors or, worse, is a person perpetually trapped in their own body 24/7 in a constant state of pain and agony, is the morally right option,

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Why not?

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide to, in some contexts, infants with medical conditions so severe and impactful that, with the parents permission, the most merciful option for them, in order to spare them from a life of suffering and pain, is euthanasia.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide From the sounds of it it's the only right you think exist.

In terms of the last point, we already strip the right to life from things with humans with DNA, ranging from tumours on our body and humans in comas/with severe brain damage on life support

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Someone's skin colour is in no way as disabling as having downs syndrome or any other severe learning disability, being in a permeant comatose state or not having the basic biological capacities of even a pig.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide I am using a non-arbitrary characteristic which is already used to strip rights and autonomy from existing humans being today.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide A tumour is as much a developed human as a foetus in early development, and if we define humanity by merely having human DNA, then a corpse is a human being too.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide including (in the case of people on life support who will be vegetables for the rest of their lives) the right to life.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide Yet they are extended based on personhood, not humanity.

As I said, tumours are 100% human in DNA, just as corpses are, but they don't get human rights because they aren't people or even capable of becoming people.

[Toby Black @PracticalLibSoc]

@Nohahu111 @unburdenedman @JDesqOH @_carmen_dioxide So you support giving children the right to vote then?

What about the right to consent to sex?

Perhaps the right to sign legally binding contracts, to abandon their education early on and, this one will be fun, to pursue whatever gender reassignment surgeries they wish?