complex process. Who gets to be a person? Are only whites persons,
or perhaps only whites are full persons? Are only naturaly born
citizens persons? One ethnic group only? A certain age?
Classifications are not made on absolute truths but rather biased by
the culture issuing the classification.
Rights are biased, the apply to all and are not handed out on a
biased choice. Those are privledges, and I find nothing more
unlibertarina than the idea of trying to claim rights are something
deligated out by a temporaly dependant definition.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Uncool,
>
> "Human" vs "person" is nothing more than a simple process of
> classification. There's nothing inherently prejudicial about it.
> All snails are mollusks but all mollusks are not snails. A
> snail-shell is "of-snail", but a "snail-person" is more than just
> a shell. All humans are mammals, but all mammals are not human. A
> human-fetus is "of-human", but a "human-person" is more than just
> a fetus. These divisions are logical and impart no more
> discrimination than they deserve.
>
> -Mark
>
> PS: Thanks for writing clearer.
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
>
> --------------------
>
>
> I object to seperate the interelationship between the two
> synonyms
> as it allows the perpetuation of dehumization used by opressers
> for
> centuries to remove the rights of human beings by decreeing them
> something less than the whole that they are.
>
> I understand your construction of what a Person is in your view,
> but
> it is nothing more than a construction and very much abstract. It
> is
> an idea, and it is an idea that strips rights from inividuals
> both
> born and unborn.
>
> I would define a person as the singular form of people, and
> sepcificly as the whole of a human entity. To claim only a person
>
> has rights, and that a human is not always a person and that
> personhood is given to them by a definition created by anouther
> is
> to make a mokery of the idea of rights. Rights are not given, the
>
> are inate, ineliable you could say. Privledges are those things
> that
> are given. To claim an unborn child is human, but not a person
> and
> thus not granted said rights is to claim that life and libertey
> are
> not rights but rather privledges of the state and then Terry,
> then
> you will finaly see that philosophical failure you talk about.
>
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.
