I will take pleasure from repasting this sequence of your posts,
as it will be quite an entertaining little read in its full
chronology:
------------------------------
Quoth Paul Ireland:
A zygote is not a human being. It does not posess human life.
it has the POTENTIAL for human life, but does not have it.
Quoth Tom Knapp:
"Because Paul Ireland says so."
Of course, empirical observation and the scientific community say
Paul Ireland is wrong, but that doesn't matter, because Paul
Ireland is always right, at least as far as Paul Ireland and the
people who care what Paul Ireland think (but I repeat myself
again) are concerned.
Quoth Mark Robert:
It depends on how you define "human life", especially in what
context. One has to assume that the main context here is the
political definition. Of course science has to be included, but
not used in a vacuum. If you isolate the scientific definition,
you can say that it is murder to eliminate all sorts of other
human parts which have potential for "human life".
Quoth Tom Knapp:
Nice try. Now, show me where I referred to "human life" or
"potential"
at all. I have made a very specific, irrefutable, provable,
observable claim as to what is and what is not a "human being,"
which is a different thing entirely.
Quoth Mark Robert:
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?
Quoth Tom Knapp:
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.
-----------------
You also seem to reply in a similar deny-twist fashion to both
the issues of "personhood" and your ridicule, which is
essentially this:
John Doe: "Butterflies are insects."
Tom clone: [sarcastically] "Because John Doe says so. Of course,
empirical observation and the scientific community say John Doe
is wrong, but that doesn't matter, because John Doe is always
right, at least as far as John Doe and the people who care what
John Doe thinks (but I repeat myself again) are concerned."
John Doe: "Since butter flies have six legs, they are insects."
Tom clone: "Nice try. Now, show me where I referred to
'butterflies' or 'insects' at all."
John Doe: "You DIRECTLY referred to the exact two terms just last
post, when you DIRECTLY refuted / ridiculed my mention of the
exact two terms. Need I repaste?"
Tom clone: "I'm confused here. You seemed to be stating that I
held out 'butterflies' and 'insects' 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."
Tom, take note that email does not lend itself to your posting
style. Everything is retained in transcript form, which makes
denying and twisting previous words very transparent and
therefore very difficult. Of course you are free to continue your
style, as you are free to dig your hole deeper.
-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.] }
--------------------------------------
Mark,
> 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.
