@click here,
I don't believe in the soul and I don't believe in innate human rights. I don't believe in the OP either.
If one assumes that (human - soul) has no innate human rights and (human inc. soul) does then it is the soul that has the innate properties called human rights. But if the soul can have such innate properties, why can't a (human - soul)? The OP nowhere states the fundamental difference between physical object and soul that forbids the former such innate properties and allows the latter the same.
Further more, it completely ignores the phenomenon of emergence. Each cell in my body does not have innate human rights since no cell individually is a human. However if one draws from this that an aggregate of such cells cannot have innate human rights because the cells themselves do not have them (i.e. one denies the possibility of emergence), then one by the same reasoning draw the conclusion that said aggregate of cells cannot have the innate property of being human, since none of those cells are innately human. Somewhere this dismissal of emergence must break down.