AND 'humaness' is NOT in contention, the appropriate term (to which
the use of which you objected) is 'person'
Human is the word referencing BIOLOGY
Person is the word referencing LEGALITY aka rights/obligations
I've explained my objecttion to interchanging these two words in the
context of discussing human abortion.
If your position is that ALL humans have rights which must be legally
recognized THEN it is up to you to support said assertion
of 'personhood'
-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Terry are you not listening to me because I am not saying what you
> want to hear. I was talking about rights, about what the very word
> means. Rights are yours, there not given to you. Titles are given
to
> you. Human rights belong to humans.
>
> You post on personhood, are YOU in the discussion Terry.
>
> You agree its human, that means it should have all human rights if
> the realy are rights Terry. If one wants to attribute some
construct
> such as personhood by your definition to it, does not have anyhting
> what so ever to do with human rights unless you want to jump on
> Paul's boat and say that a human fetus is not human despite the
> clear adjective.
>
> Is life a human right, or a privledge Terry?
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > UnCoolRabbit, are you or are you not in a discussion here, in
this
> > forum, about 'rights' and 'obligations' regarding preborn human
> life
> > forms?
> >
> > If you ARE discussing rights/duties pertaining to developing
> humans
> > then the appropriate legal/political term is 'personhood'
> > since 'humaness' is NOT in contention.
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > Please see what I wrote in this forum about it as
> > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<uncoolrabbit@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > I object to separate the interrelationship 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 individuals
> both
> > > born and unborn.
> > >
> > > I would define a person as the singular form of people, and
> > > specifically 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 another
> is
> > > to make a mockery of the idea of rights. Rights are not given,
> the
> > > are innate, inalienable you could say. Privileges 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 liberty
> are
> > > not rights but rather privileges of the state and then Terry,
> then
> > > you will finally see that philosophical failure you talk about.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- 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.
