recognition?
DEFINE your terms!
-TLP
--- 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.
