I have no problem with your use of "human" as you explain it.
Relative sentience and independence are two very good criteria.
But since "human" is often (by itself, without attending special
definitions) too general, "person" becomes more specified for the
purpose (as "person" also includes "human" as an essential part
of its definition). But you, TLP and I need not actually debate
this, as our positions are the same; you may use "human" and we
may use "person" with full understanding of each other's intent.
To elaborate on your second point if I may:
Since it is obvious that a pregnant woman who wishes to abort is
a "human" and a "human being" and a "person" (in both the
scientific and political/legal sense), and it is extremely
debatable whether the fetus is the same, then it is the woman who
has the rights by default (especially since they can not both
have rights).
-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.] }
-----------------
No, there is no such thing a person without higher brain
functions.
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
>
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.
