who or what gets to be regarded as a person:
sentience- ability to consider essential
information about one's environment
(surroundings, situation and so on)
agency- power to act in that environment
conscious volition- free will to intervene between
stimulus and response by making meaningful choices;
without which one can not be 'responsible' for
one's actions that interface with other persons
Imo, 'personhood' is about individual sovereigns
(whose 'domains' are their own bodies and
justly held possessions) being free moral agents;
which still leaves room for acts of compassion :)
Domains http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
Morals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/37899
There are three essential areas of moral concern about human abortion:
1. Personhood- At what point do rights and obligations accrue to the
developing individual?
The spectrum of opinion is from the moment of conception
(spiritual, before physical zygote) thru physical gestation to birth
and a few years beyond (human infanticide is actually NOT regarded as
murder in some societies)
2. Obligation- If the developing individual is deemed a 'person'
what, if any, duty to that person exists, to provide support?
No person has an 'automatic' claim on the resources of another
person to provide them with support. But, did voluntary action
by the 'host' person create an obligation to the 'dependent' person?
3. Fatal Eviction- If the 'host' person has a right to deny support
to the 'dependent' person, does the 'host' person's right to 'evict'
the 'dependent' person include doing so in such a way that is fatal
to said dependent?
People of sincere conscience can be found on all sides of these three
concerns.
'The unexamined life is not worth living'
Socrates, in Plato, Dialogues, Apology
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)
at http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24198.html
Please also enter the word consciousness at http://www.Google.com
-Terry Liberty Parker
see: 'Your Freedom and the Rigths of Others'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoth "uncoolrabbit"
>
> > Back to the point, a principle that many here, I
> > think even Paul, have claimed to support is tracing initiation of
> > force to its source in determing who is the agressor, or where
the
> > agression is comming from.
> >
> > In the case of Abortion, were is the agression comming from, is
it
> > comming from the child? Not hardly, the child did not exhist
prior
> > to conception and had no conscious part in it. It was actions
taken
> > by the parents that are responsible for its very being. This is
an
> > important to mention, responsible, as the are responsible for
this
> > life.
> >
> > The fetus, for Paul who enjoys the term, is alive, and abortion
> > terminates that life, it kills the fetus, who is not responsible
for
> > the condition of the mother. The agression is the act of the
> > responsible party, terminating the very exhistance of the 2nd
party
> > to avoid there own responsibilities and consequences of there
> > actions. Nothing could be to me, more unlibertarian.
>
> A fair argument, but you're missing the point of contention.
>
> No one (at least no sane person with even a rudimentary knowledge of
> biology) denies that the fetus is "alive."
>
> What those libertarians who hold that abortion should not be
> interfered with believe is that the fetus is not a _person_, with
> _rights_.
>
> If it isn't, then there is no "aggression" involved -- it's no
> different in principle than having a tumor or a wart removed, and it
> would be aggression to forcibly prevent it.
>
> On the other hand, if it _is_ a person, with rights, then there may
or
> may not be aggression to deal with, at several points and involving
> any or several of the involved parties.
>
> Without rehearsing my own views on the subject in detail, the main
> thing I'd like to point out is that this is an argument over
questions
> of specific fact and implementation, not an argument over principle.
> Both pro-life and pro-choice libertarians (of the Non-Aggression
> Principle variety) eschew and condemn the initiation of force --
what
> they disagree on is the status of the fetus (person or non-person),
> and it is on that question that subsequent questions of whether or
not
> force is being initiated hinge.
>
> > Also, I just want to say, if I haven't before, that I love
hearing
> > from you on the board Thomas.
>
> Likewise!
>
> Regards,
> Tom Knapp
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
