By observing how humans are born, I know that humans are a product of a sperm and an egg.
Now as soon as a female conceives, she automatically gives a "right to life" to the embryo (1).
She controls this right to life till the baby is in her womb (2) and can take away this right anytime.
If she wants to give birth or not, that"s her choice (3).
After the baby is born, full rights are transfered to it and no one can take away this right from it (4).
Only that person has full right to abdicate this right (5).
(6) (7) (8)

(1) This right to life is the most basic right, other rights come only when a person has the right to live.

(2) This right to life control is given to the mother because its a part of her body (till the time its not born).
Since the mother is providing nourishment, care and protection to the embryo, she shares this right till the time the baby is born.

(3) A case where the right to life of a girl embryo is violated, but its the choice of parents.
If the parents do not want the girl child then which is better - killing the embryo or tormenting the child after she is born?
Education and respect for equal rights to all is the only way to tackle this.

(4) Automatically anyone taking away the right to life of any individual himself loses this right.
He can"t say that he still has that right. The society gains it. Everyone in the society.
They have to decide now that whether to allow him to continue using this right or take it away from him.

(5) A case of suicide and euthanasia to be considered here.
Suicide should be discouraged but anyone who commits suicide should not be treated as a misfit, he just stopped using his right.
People who kill others along with themselves have automatically lost their right. They don"t abdicate it, they loose it.
Euthanasia in cases where the human body just can"t bear any more, because of pain or rotting of some vital organ, should be allowed.

(6) The most complex case would be a war. But its similar to killing anyone.
Here the society itself has some part to play. It wants the war for land, resources or anything else.
It sanctions the war.
It says, "You go and kill so that we may survive. We won"t take away your right to life in the case you are protecting our interests."

(7) This right to life is given to everyone. And even to plants and animals.
Now as per the human society"s interests, this right to life is taken away from plants and animals for food, pleasure, medicine and what not.
Since the human society has more power comparatively it easily takes away this right.

But here there is an important distinction.
Every living thing has a predator, this predator feeds on its prey. So for its survival it has full justification to take away that right from the prey.
So we can eat plants and animals without any hassles.
Only intra-species this right cannot be taken away.

(8) This also means that if some day more evolution takes place (either man-made or natural), if the new species wants to prey on humans, it can do so and it will.
This is the natural order.





How does Carbon behave? How does Iron behave? Science can answer that.
Why do Carbon and Iron behave the way they behave, no one can answer that.
Life developed and evolved but what gave life what to develop into and what gave life what to develop from.
For a loss of a fitting word, I consider it to be a higher power.
Without this higher power, the process of life itself does not know how to start or where to start from. It was given a push.


Basically living objects are separated from non-living objects. On the basis of what?
We are made from minerals and elements, so are a lot of things. What is the difference then?
I think the difference is the soul, every living thing has a soul, every amoeba, every tree, every animal and every human.
Now this soul is present in all but its there just to make living things living.
No other purpose.
When an new seed is formed, it gets a soul (maybe granted from a higher power or maybe a new birth automatically generates a new soul).