regarded as an individual possessing the property of 'personhood'
(entity capable of having attributed to it, rights/obligations)
A human lifeform can indeed not meet the criteria of 'personhood' AND
NON-human entities can at least theoretically have 'personhood'
-Terry Liberty Parker
Please see what I wrote in this forum as
'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> A person is a human, and a human is a person. They are identical
and
> interchangeable terms. What do you think Human means ... robot?
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <tx liberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I object to employing the word 'human' to mean 'person' as the
issue
> > is already rife with people talking past each other :(
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > Please see what I wrote in this forum as
> > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48100
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <cotton
drop@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > David I tend to agree with the prolife libertarians more than
the
> > pro
> > > choice but I don't agree with either entirely. I don't think we
> > need
> > > special legislation for abortion, it is either murder or it is
not
> > > both the mother and the doctor could be charged with murder.
The
> > > mother can claim self defense, Personally I think any killing
of a
> > > human should be presented to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury would
> > > decided if there is enough evidence to take it to trial before
the
> > > regular jury. I also think the decision should be unanimous
with to
> > > take a case to trial. The grand jury should have at least 23
> > members
> > > but could have more. If a prosecutor decided not to bring forth
a
> > > case of a killing of a fetus or even a zygote because he
thought it
> > > was not a human being the Grand jury could investigate the case
> > anyway
> > > to see if it had a human
> > > standing.
> > > I think disproving the great majority of mothers claim
of
> > > self defense would be very hard and the grand juries would
probably
> > > only send a few cases to trial, the regular jury would convict
even
> > > fewer, they would give anything more than a light sentence to
even
> > > fewer and even fewer mothers and doctors would lose on
> > > appeals.
> > > Since self defense in case of abortion is so hard to
> > disprove
> > > most mothers will claim self defense even if that was not the
case.
> > > Taking a morning after pill or some other means to self abort a
> > > zygote would probably almost never go before a grand jury
unless
> > > complications to the mothers health arose and the doctor
concluded
> > > that was the reason then reported
> > > it.
> > > If abortion is murder and I think in many cases it is then
> > mothers
> > > and abortionist and drug providers can easily get away with
> > > murder.
> > > It would be a very good idea to convince mothers that
there
> > is
> > > better options and private groups, friends and family to lend
> > support
> > > for those better alternative some which are abstinence from
> > > intercourse, better methods of birth control, adoption, co-
> > parenting
> > > with other mothers, couples, grandparents or other family
members
> > > including allowing the mother to be compensated by an
adaptation
> > > couple at market rates, encouraging and insisting the man to
take
> > > responsibility but if he is at risk for the support, he should
also
> > be
> > > compensated in case the mother is compensated for the adoption.-
--
> > In
> > > [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Since you don't have time to study the pro-life libertarian
> > > > position, in areas where my knowledge is incomplete I will
> > > > continue to rely on Ron Paul until you have obtained degrees
> > > > in obstetrics and gynecology, delivered at least 4,000 babies,
> > > > defended the cause of liberty in Congress for significant
portions
> > > > of the last four decades and run for President of the United
> > States
> > > > as a life member of the Libertarian Party. Subject closed.
> > > >
> > > > For life and liberty,
> > > > David Macko
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Paul" <tireland@>
> > > > To: <[email protected]>
> > > > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:35 PM
> > > > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why would I waste my time on a website based on a false
premise,
> > and
> > > > which violates the most sacred of libertarian principles ....
sole
> > > > dominion over our own body and the contents within.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Apparently you still have not had enough time to completely
> > > > > read all of the information at www.l4l.org.
> > > > >
> > > > > For life and liberty,
> > > > > David Macko
> > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > From: "Paul" <tireland@>
> > > > > 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 possess 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"
> > > <uncoolrabbit@>
> > > > > > 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" <tireland@>
> > 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 appropriate 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
> > > > > >> > > indeed 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"
> > > > > >> <tx liberty@>
> > > > > >> > > 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 your point of view
than
> > > recently,
> > > > > >> but
> > > > > >> > > > > you "obviously are trying to" strip the human
> > > attribute 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.
