What you described is a corpse. Or more accuratly an organ farm.
I insist on using the word human because HUMAN life (as opposed to
other forms of life) is defined by a level of sentience higher than
all other creatures on earth. A fetus does not have this level of
sentience.
I've said this before, and I'll repeat it. Even if a fetus WERE a
fully functioning, fully sentient, person capable of intelligent
thought and speech, as long as it remains in the body of another
person it has no rights.
NOTHING inside the body of a person has any rights because we have
SOLE DOMINION over our body and the contents of that body, even if
it's the body of another.
--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Paul, so to you, an individual born with no brain except the medulla
> oblongata, for one example, has right and duties as a fully grown
> human person; cuz human=person/person=human?
>
> If so, tell us why?
>
> If not, tell us why?
>
> Then please explain why you insist that the biological term (human)
> is just as good a word to use in the discussion of what
> rights/obligations should be legally recognized for this individual.
>
> Hint: person is the word normally used in this context of legallly
> recognized rights/duties, to describe SOME humans and NON-humans.
>
> A concept from the novel 1984 was to hamstring language as part of
> debilitating the ability of people to think in sufficient abstraction
> so as to become inconvenient to the totalitarian state.
>
> Reduced discretionary abilit is aka 'dumbing down'
>
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
> http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <tireland@> wrote:
> >
> > 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" <tx liberty@>
> > 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
> > > Please see what I wrote in this forum as
> > > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <tireland@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A person is a human, and a human is a person. They are
> identical
> > > and
> > > > interchangeable terms. What do you think Human means ...
> robot?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --- 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.
