imperical observation prove that a zygote is NOT a human being, but
merely has the potential to be one. Separate DNA does not constitute
a human being anymore than a seed constitutes an actual watermelon or
a finger constitutes a person. A human finger has 100% of the DNA
used in a human body, but it has no human life. A fetus is no different.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Tom,
>
> 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.
