fatdogs12

I didn't mean a blanket government regulation. Just that there should be a legal remedy (that doesn't take forever) to stop this. However it's executed that works well is fine

I think if we knew that humans were causing it the Government would be serving in their proper role to stop it. Simply because they are causing hard to others by doing it. Same thing as why you cant just dump toxic wastes into rivers, because you would be harming other people's property.

I will re-read all your previous posts and go through OPAR again to see if I can get what you are getting at. Not trying to be argumentative about the issue, I just truly do not see the reasoning though I think I understand what you are saying (could be wrong though). We'll see. Either way I appreciate your input

It shows the principle by which they are granted rights. That is all I have been addressing. Ayn says: Men are granted rights because of X. Retarded people are still granted rights because of Y. She specifically says Y is the reason they have rights. Since their rights are predicated on that and since he never had that which it was predicated upon I cannot see how we can derive that this person has any rights. Even if they are not property, I cannot see how they have any rights. They are not at all rational beings, they will never be rational beings. What rights can non rational beings have? I completely understand why any rational being should have rights. But someone who cannot conceptualize anything at all I cannot see how that follows. I don't see how that's relevant. The general case is simply that man deserves rights because he is rational. They are only given rights because they are rational. There are definitely retarded people who are pretty much at Schiavo's level, not brain dead but incapable of much of anything. In the example we are using the person has no parents. He could have been abandoned or his parents desire to sell his body for research.

But see I'm not ignoring the quote at all, I want to use the whole thing. You said "Yes, and that same quote says they should be cared for as perpetual children" This does not apply to our special case because her reasoning was: "Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own." In our situation the person cannot ever "improve and become partly able to stand on their own". They will never stand on their own. So her reason for granting them rights in this case is simply moot.

I see the reasoning from people. but I don' think it addresses the issue. I've shown a direct quote from Rand that says that not all humans are afforded the same rights and that their rational capacity is the reason for that. While a number of things have been said I don't think anyone so far has addressed that issue... Parents call all the shots for their children, make decisions for them. They decide where they will go, what they will do. I guess that means they just have the legal responsibility for them? Idk on that. We are talking about someone in essence who is more animal than human in man's most fundamental category though and can't support their self at all. I'm interested to see your view on this issue.

So what? Of course he's still a man, that's not being debated. Ayn Rand already said a retarded person should not be afforded the same rights as a regular person. But he is afforded some rights according to her because he may improve.... Our guy can't improve. I don't see rights coming of this

Okay see that's why I was so specific that the person did not have a rational capacity. That they had less brain ability then many animals. If they had any rational capacity at all then these are people that are not part of the discussion. I'm not sure how you came to believe that 'the ones that we're talking about, do have a rational faculty.' If that was the case this would not even be an issue. Most retarded people in my experience have a basic rational capacity, which is beyond any animal. They know basic concepts, they know what pants are etc. Definitely not talking about those people. I don't see that the scientific aspect matters though. All that matters is if doctors can be certain they have no rational capacity and will never have one would it be moral. From everything I've read it doesn't make sense to grant someone with no rational capacity and no hope or one any rights. They certainly can't exercise any rights. They have no values. They don't try to live, they just exist.

Well the parents definitely did in the beginning I would think. So now they could either be owned by the parents or could have been abandoned. A dog can do much more yet is own-able so I don't see how that makes a person who has no rational capacity any different. Would love to see the reasoning behind it though if someone wants to share.

I don't think that is the issue of the thread though. We are talking someone who simply has no rational capacity nor has ever had one, nor will ever have one.... And we are also talking about someone below the level of most animals. EDIT: Of a number of animals. I think the situations you mentioned relative to this are fairly cut and dry. If someone at some point had a rational ability, then yes that would make sense. Here though, simply they never did and won't in the future. Essentially we are talking about a person lower than a dog as far as abilities mental and otherwise go, definitely far below a monkey.

This really doesn't follow. We are protected by virtue of being a human being... That seems to be the answer, but there doesn't seem to be a reason why they should be protected. Meaning simply: Why are human beings granted the rights they are to begin with? If they are granted these rights because of because they look the same, breath the same and move around then they are being granted rights which have nothing to do with their ability. As Tenure says I thought rights are meant to protect man's mode of survival... I guess in this case they are just handed out to those who don't have that basic thing that sets man apart from things like dogs, cats and everything else.

So because something 'should' be something but isn't it gets rights? I don't see that point making any sense. Why should something be given just because it "should" have that? That's a pretty strange dichotomy to me.

That article actually makes my entire point for me. Here is a quote (thanks for Old Toad for finding the quote) "A brainless baby, on the other hand, has no rights, because rights follow from the characteristic which, in him, is broken, i.e., non-existent – a rational faculty." This is my entire point

What makes human beings so special? As she said they get those rights only because of the possibility of improving. But in a case where we know there is no chance why do they get that right? THanks

Haha that's funny. Monkeys in the work place... See though it seems that Ayn Rand supports the position that not all humans are given rights, that you do have to have some rational capacity or a possibility of having one to gain rights: Q: Do severely retarded individuals have rights? A: Not actual rights--not the same rights possessed by normal individuals. In effect, they have the right to be protected as perennial children. Like children, retarded people are entitled to protection because, as humans, they may improve and become partly able to stand on their own. The protection of their rights is a courtesy extended to them for being human, even if not properly formed ones. But you could not extend the actual exercise of individual rights to a retarded person, because he's unable to function rationally. Since all rights rest on human nature, a being that cannot exercise his rights cannot have full human rights. -From Ayn Rand Answers: The Best of her Q&A It's a "courtesy extended"?... that doesn't really make sense to me