So, the discussion that is ON-topic in this forum is regarding what
about it is govt to do when a woman wants to choose abortion?
Like it or not, THAT is a matter of identifying 'PERSONS' and their
just rights in order to determine what, if anything about it, is to
be done by govt.
And this is just the 'warm-up' for some duzies to come :)
-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: StarTrek (&other) playbacks- Who/What ARE 'We'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TerryLiberty/message/276
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> I reject your assertion that life is a birth right, and assert it
is
> a human right. This is an opinion and point of view for both of us,
> and can not be logicaly debated.
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > Rights ARE inalienable. They are not HANDED OUT at birth, they
> are a
> > BIRTH RIGHT. We attain them at birth because this is when we have
> > been created (notice the past tense of that word) aka BORN. You
> get
> > birthrights at birth, hence the term BIRTH right.
> >
> > At birth we are born as property owners, and the first thing we
> own is
> > ourselves. This is why we have rights at birth. Until the
moment
> of
> > birth we do not have any rights, not even the right to live.
> NOTHING
> > inside the body of a person has any rights....not even if it were
> > another person (which a fetus is not).
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Then, Mark, you assume that rights are not inalienable, and
thus
> > > handed out like a birth certificate. I reiterate my rejection
of
> > > this thought. I can not reconcile the concept of the state
> owning my
> > > very being, and all my rights are dirived from the state rather
> than
> > > my being itself. Rights should not become a synonymn for
> privledges,
> > > nothing could be more dangerous to libertey.
> > >
> > > I am discussing what I am discussing and what I am discussing
is
> how
> > > defending abortion can not be seen as the only Libertarian
point
> of
> > > view. I am talking about human rights Mark. My discussion is
not
> > > being directed by your desire or any one elses to only look at
a
> > > piece of the picture and ignore the darker sides that some find
> > > unpleasant.
> > >
> > > My point of view of abortion extends directly from my point of
> view
> > > on what the difference between a right and a privledge are. #6
> is
> > > supposed to be used as a legal term for contracts and
> legislation,
> > > not as a tool of opression but it is so easily misused by those
> who
> > > misconstrue its purpose, and is thus a monstrocity.
> > >
> > >
> > > Here is the biggest mindbogler for me. Personhood in your point
> of
> > > view being about who gets rights and who does not. This is
> assigned,
> > > it is not in stone and thus who is curently a person and who is
> not
> > > is irelevant to the greater question of who should be a person
> under
> > > your definition. Definition #1 answers that question. #6 is
> simply a
> > > matter of legal terminolgy. Who recieves human rights is not,
> rights
> > > are not granted by legislation or contract Mark. How can that
be
> so
> > > objectionable of a thought to a 'libertarian group.'
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Uncool,
> > > >
> > > > I don't comprehend why you are explaining the nature of
rights,
> > > > when we are discussing abortion and "human" vs "person".
> > > >
> > > > Regarding "person", Merriam Webster grants synonymy
> with "human"
> > > > in def # 1. But def # 6 says: "one (as a human being, a
> > > > partnership, or a corporation) that is recognized by law as
the
> > > > subject of rights and duties."
> > > >
> > > > Since this discussion is about abortion (and immigration?) and
> > > > what life-stage qualifies for full rights, I assume #6 is more
> > > > appropriate here.
> > > >
> > > > -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.] }
> > > >
> > > > ----------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I disagree. Rights are NOT given to us by the state or by
> > > > political
> > > > aperatus Mark. Rights, are those things that are believed to
be
> > > > ours
> > > > with out strings attached. Human seems far more apropriate to
> me
> > > > for
> > > > discussing rights Mark. Thats why they say "Human rights"
Mark.
> > > >
> > > > --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > For our purposes, "human" seems more scientific and "person"
> > > > more
> > > > > political. I believe the latter is more accommodating for
> > > > > discussing rights.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
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.
