"I prefer to call it a rational decision."
So do most everyone else who might pick the same arbitrary point as you or another quite different one.
"This is in contrast to your stated belief that there is no point that can be proven scientifically--"or otherwise"--whatever the "otherwise" might refer to as an argument of "proof"?"
"Or otherwise" simply leaves open the possibility of a logical proof based on a set of facts. The process need not be purely scientific.
Besides, people's standards for "proof" vary. Some consider finding it in the Bible or the Quran or some other popular "authority", including non- or anti-religious ones, to be "proof". Others are happy with a preponderance of scientific or other evidence. Yet others want an absolute, no exceptions or lingering questions allowed, incontrovertible "truth".
The point is, I don't think there will ever be universal agreement (unless by force, of course) as to the point where one becomes a person with rights. It is possible, however, for enough of us to agree to some arbitrary (or rationally concluded, if you insist, though someone will surely say it is not) standard that we can just call it settled and live with it for a little while regardless of what the minority of extremists on either side say. Wouldn't that be nice?
"Rights NEVER conflict."
Sorry, but that's ridiculous. Laws exist for the very reason that rights often conflict. |
