If you refuse to delve into those questions the only people to agree
with you will be the same ones before you spoke.
Personhood refers to the property of rights/duties associated with an
individual; be said individual organic or not.
Human is a general term that refers to a species made up of many and
diverse individuals; some of which can meet the criteria of legally
recognized personhood.
It's intellectually and spiritually lazy
to default to a comfortable prejudice
shared by one's associates!
MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
-TLP
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Its so much more than a simple logical process Mark. Its a very
> 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" <colowe@> 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.
