> 2. You DIRECTLY referred to the exact two terms just last post,
> when you DIRECTLY refuted / ridiculed Paul's mention of the exact
> two terms. Need I repaste?
I'm confused here. You seemed to be stating that I held out "human
life" and "potential" as the relevant characteristics. If you're
saying that, then yes, you need to paste, because I'm stating that I
never did any such thing.
A zygote, embryo or fetus is not a "potential human life." It is an
actual "human being." That's a fact, and any debate on abortion must
take it into account. That fact doesn't by any means automatically
invalidate pro-choice arguments ... but any pro-choice argument that
denies that fact immediately invalidates itself.
> 3. I'm not sure your paragraph isn't a little contradictory.
> Criticizing abortion rights is pretty anti-abortion/pro-life.
When, in the course of this argument, have I "criticized abortion rights?"
> And now by contrasting "human being" with "person", you are going
> to make us delve deeper into these term refinements: I think
> "being" may move "human" closer to the political/legal definition
> / "person" ("being" makes them more similar).
Well, obviously within the realm of "humanity," a "being" is closer to
a "person" than an "arm" or "leg" or "fingernail" is.
Actually, "closer" may not be the right term, since an arm, leg or
fingernail is never, ever going to be a "person." It's not a matter of
differing potentials, it's a matter of non-potential versus actuality.
The only question is when a "human being" -- a specific, whole
iteration of the species -- is a "person."
It would be convenient to say that "human being" = "person." If,
however, that is the case, then a big piece of the argument on
abortion is over, since there is absolutely no question that a zygote,
fetus or embryo is a "human being."
I am more than willing to entertain the notion that not all "human
beings" are "persons." I'd even go so far as to place the burden of
proof on those who say that all "human beings" ARE "persons" rather
than on those who deny it. Where I stop is at the point of giving
either side a free pass to ignore, reject or redefine irrefutable
biological fact just because doing so is easier and more congenial to
their position than acknowledging that fact.
> 4. Your continued ridicule is unnecessary.
What ridicule?
Tom Knapp
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.
