Mark you might be confusing the terms, Paul does all the time as he
doesn't acknowledge a difference. We can argue about when to attach
the quality of being Human, as Paul does, though science and english
gramer show Paul to be wrong. Or we can Argue about personhood, and
to argue about when to asign personhood with out any consideration
to the attribute of being human is what I find uncompromisably
objectionable. To claim a thing as human, but not a person is
exactly how prejudice and racism were capable of resulting in what
we call atrocities. Dehuminization of a human being is the catalyst
for atrocity, it is the seperation of your definition #1 from your
definition #6 and I reject it at all levels Mark.
Terry, I hope you notice I do stand for things, and if they are not
the same as that wich you stand for, it does not mean I have some
evil plot to trash your 'philosophical triumpf'.
>
> Uncool,
>
> As for your fist paragraph:
> Racism, prejudice and ageism are red herrings. Obviously
> personhood is not dependant on those criteria. No one here is
> debating that. We are discussing personhood and abortion in the
> context of different stages in human reproduction, where very
> simple classifications can be made.
>
> As for your second paragraph:
> I continue to fail to make any sense out of around 75% of your
> posts, but this paragraph is a topper. Please try to improve your
> writing skills. Your writing is so substandard that until you
> improve it, I (and others I imagine) can not tell if the problem
> lies with your writing or your logic. Of course your writing may
> occasionally work for you by mimicking success: when no one CAN
> respond.
>
> -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.] }
>
>
> ------------
>
>
>
> Its so much more than a simple logical process Mark. Its a very
> complex process. Who gets to be a person? Are only whites
> persons,
> or perhaps only whites are full persons? Are only naturaly born
> citizens persons? One ethnic group only? A certain age?
> Classifications are not made on absolute truths but rather biased
> by
> the culture issuing the classification.
>
> Rights are biased, the apply to all and are not handed out on a
> biased choice. Those are privledges, and I find nothing more
> unlibertarina than the idea of trying to claim rights are
> something
> deligated out by a temporaly dependant definition.
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Uncool,
> >
> > "Human" vs "person" is nothing more than a simple process of
> > classification. There's nothing inherently prejudicial about
> it.
> > All snails are mollusks but all mollusks are not snails. A
> > snail-shell is "of-snail", but a "snail-person" is more than
> just
> > a shell. All humans are mammals, but all mammals are not human.
> A
> > human-fetus is "of-human", but a "human-person" is more than
> just
> > a fetus. These divisions are logical and impart no more
> > discrimination than they deserve.
> >
> > -Mark
> >
> > PS: Thanks for writing clearer.
> >
>
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.
