You SEEM to be claiming that making any distinctions about what
has (and does not have) individual rights is impossible. Well
then shoot me for claiming monkeys have none.
You SEEM to be claiming that choosing the dictionary definition
that is the most appropriate is like changing rights to
privileges. Well then I guess a discussion about the legal
definition of "person" should not include legal terms.
Your position would SEEM to be that, since rights are
inalienable, anything remotely related to human automatically has
them. Well then I must be a mass murderer because I killed
millions of Bacterioides thetaiotamicron today.
-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.] }
-------------
#6 is a legal construction, for legal language and does not
remove
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
>
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.
