= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
ChristianKl comments on Open thread, Nov. 3 - Nov. 9, 2014 - Less Wrong Discussion
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (310)
The right to life is a pretty recent idea.
The US constitution for example have a right not to be deprived of life without due process. It has a right to not to be tortured (cruel and unusual punishment) no matter what.
In the US some cryonics folks have registered a religion that allows them there cryogenic treatment without interference. Freedom of religion is actually a constitutional right in the US. In the case of abortion "pro-life" is also a position mainly argued from a position of religion.
The France state is strongly secular and you don't get many expectations just because you register a religion. Especially one without tradition such as the one of the cryonics folks. The French state doesn't allow any religion to block autopsies simply by claiming that they have a special burial ritual that forbids autopsies. That's why there's a different situation concerning cryonics in France.
At the moment no court considers a cryonic person alive. If it would then the whole scheme of using insurance contracts that trigger on the death of a person wouldn't work to finance cryonics in the first place.
How about rephrasing it as a "right to a chance to live again"?
That's nothing that's found in any constitution or international treaty. It would be possible to create laws that grant rights to cryonics but at the moment we don't have them.