parady your mention of a tree and an acorn, to remind you of what
you are undoubtedly smart enough to realize with out reminding, that
your speaking of things that bear no relation to the point in
question. An Acorn is like the egg, not the fetus, when the acorn
hits the earth and germinates it becomes a sappling. There is no
relevance here.
Now as for your mention of a zygote, it is irelavent to your
position in the point that we were discussing because:
If you were capable of proving a zygote is not human (wich you did
not offer any proof to) it would not show one way or anouther if a
fetus is human or not.
Further more, if it were shown that a zygote is human it would
directly imply that a fetus is. Such backtracking in the process
does not strengthen your position at all, yet has the potential to
strengthen mine. Such retreat would never be done voluntary with out
the acting parties realization that they are fighting a losing
battle.
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Oh, so it's ok for you to mention a sperm and an egg, but I can't
> mention a zygote? I'm pointing out how absurd and unlibertarian
your
> position is.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Why are you talking about Zygotes Paul, your moving farther and
> > farther back in the process. Why? Because your afraid its to
obvious
> > from what end of your anatomy you are speaking?
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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"
<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" <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.
