In your opinion. When does a human being's "Basic Human Rights" begin? Or, if you prefer.... when "should" a human being's (basic) human rights begin?
To begin, a right is something immutable, some social permission that others cannot take away from you. If a certain social permission can be taken away, it's not a right, it's a privilege. What that means is that a right like the right to life is not a conditional statement that can be annulled for any reason, if you have the right to life, you have the right to life, not the right to life unless you screw it up. Or the right to free speech, it's not conditional on you having the proper opinions, on you not having a criminal record, or on you being popular or even right -- the minute you put a condition on free speech it isn't really a right to free speech, it's the privilege of being allowed to speak your popular opinions in a manner approved of by the elitist superstructure. A right that you have to enforce yourself isn't a right, it's a privilege of having power. In oter words, if I can only speak if I have the mafia around to keep you from arresting me, it isn't some nebulous notion of 'human rights' that allows me to speak, it's Vinnie and Raymond standing behind me that allow me to speak. As soon as you deal with my bodyguards, I can't talk anymore without going to jail. The notion of human rights being conferred by location is equally nonsensical, as it implies that there's something magical about whichever border you put up. So I'm human when I live in Canada, but somehow not so when I cross the border (via airplane perhaps) to Russia, or Japan or wherever. Or what rights I have magically appear and disappear depending on where I'm standing -- which means logically that the rights are not there because I am human but because I'm standing on the right piece of dirt. If you can get me across the border to a place that gives me no rights I don't have them which thusly makes human rights meaningless. And then there's the question of development -- but it's not really simply development as people can make progress and regress on any of a dozen or more cognitive measures. If a certain cognitive status is required to attain the status of "worthy of rights" then losing cognitive ability should remove rights, which makes them privileges, not rights.
