the important of definition one in this discussion. The fact that
one side asserts that 6 does not imply 1 (despite 1 comming first)
does not make it a non issue. It may mean they don't want to
acknowledge that, or that they believe it is not an issue.
To seperate 1 from 6 is akin to seperating inailienable from rights
in the constitution. To claim that one person has rights and one
does not is to claim rights to not exhist and substitute them state
administered privledges masquerading as rights.
6 is a monstrocity and has been since its inseption.
1 applies, 6 does not, when discussing who recieves human rights.
We can have those in Pauls camp to claim a fetus is not human, or
those in Terrys to claim that rights are not inailienable and are
handed out on basis of legal definition, or the religious camp to
claim it is just wrong, and who knows how many other camps. I have
my own camp aswell.
So its not forgotten, my point in posting in this thread is to put
my opinion forward that niether side of the abortion debate is
solely Libertarian. The why's are so varried and widley known that
they do not require further discussion.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> Regarding "person", Merriam Webster grants synonymy with "human"
> in def # 1. But def # 6 says: "one (as a human being, a
> partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as the
> subject of rights and duties."
>
> Since this discussion is about abortion (and immigration?) and
> what life-stage qualifies for full rights, I assume #6 is the
> appropriate one here.
>
> -Mark
>
>
> ************
> {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 disagree with that context. A person is a human, and a human
> is a
> person. Nothing other than a human can be a person, and nothing
> other
> than a fully sentient person (aka POST BIRTH) qualifies as a
> human.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker"
> <txliberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Paul, not in the context of this discussion of who or what gets
> to be
> > 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
> >
>
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.
