read all of the information at www.l4l.org.
For life and liberty,
David Macko
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:48 AM
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
>A zygote is not a human being. It does not posess human life. it has
> the POTENTIAL for human life, but does not have it. Separate DNA does
> not amount to human life. A fetus is not a whole human being. A
> whole human being is a fully sentient person and a fetus is not. We
> can use Terry's definition of person if you choose.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>>
>> A sperm cell is not human life but it has the potential to be, a
>> human egg cell is not human life but it has the potential to be so.
>> A human fetus is not a piece of one human whole such as your arm, it
>> is itself a human whole. You would be wiser to cop out and follow
>> Terry's lead of personhood, as a human fetus is human. If you sever
>> your arm its self mutilation, suggesting problems that I am not
>> trained to deal with.
>>
>> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
>> >
>> > My arm is a human arm. It has human DNA, and it's alive. If I
>> sever
>> > my arm, have I murdered someone? Human life is different from any
>> > other. Human life belongs to people (aka persons).
>> >
>> > Here are a list of things that do NOT qualify as HUMAN life.
>> >
>> > A beating heart
>> > A cerebral cortex
>> > A nervous system
>> > Human DNA
>> > Reflexive Actions or response to painful stimuli
>> > Head, Torso, Hands, Feet, Fingers, Toes, Eyes, Ears, Nose, or Mouth
>> > The shape of a human being
>> >
>> > An acorn is not an oak tree but it has the POTENTIAL to be one.
>> Dough
>> > is not bread, but it has the POTENTIAL to be. A fetus is not a
>> human
>> > being but it has the POTENTIAL to be one.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
>> > wrote:
>> > >
>> > > On what basis do you feel it apropriate to twist, contort and
>> > > outright lie about my statements Terry? I attribute HUMANESS to
>> the
>> > > fetus Terry. The response was to Paul, who does not merely argue
>> > > that a fetus does not fit a definition of personhood. Paul
>> outright
>> > > claims that a human fetus is not human despite the fact that it
>> is
>> > > indead a human fetus, not a baboon fetus, not an antelope fetus
>> not
>> > > anything like that. My post remains below yours to remind you
>> that
>> > > not once did I use the word Personhood in it.
>> > >
>> > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker"
>> <txliberty@>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > On what basis do you assert that the property of personhood be
>> > > > attributed to a pre-born human individual?
>> > > >
>> > > > Please see what I wrote in this forum as
>> > > > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
>> > > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48100
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > -Terry Liberty Parker
>> > > > http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
>> <uncoolrabbit@>
>> > > > wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > > A much better statement of yourpoint of view than recently,
>> but
>> > > > > you "obviously are trying to" strip the human atrribute from
>> a
>> > > > human
>> > > > > organism, just as the slaver or the fascist before you. :)
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.
