The historic basis for subordinating the Rights of individuals to the state, sending individuals into involuntary servitude, and pilfering their earnings has been the un-ending claim that the individual "owed" -- take your pick -- humanity, society, the King, the Capo, the Pack a portion of or all of his life. An individual can only be indebted to other individuals.
It seems to me you are answering a question that isn't being asked: You speak of "the state" when others speak of "humanity." They are not the same.
Further, there may be a point that you are making in differentiating between "humans" and "humanity" but it seems to me every time you try you end up equating them. It also seems to me to be impossible to separate the two without going to use of "individual" as the opposite of "humanity."
If your argument is simply that "humanity" is a concept and therefore cannot be the object of anything, that seems to me to simply be an attempt to avoid the meat of the discussion.
