Having a conversation about rights, and what has them and what
doesn't, in no way implies that said rights are alienable /
transferable / "assigned" / derived from the govt / synonymous
with privileges / or granted by legislation. Not only did I not
say anything about rights being any of those things, I did not
imply it in any way. Your post is long-jumping to its own
obviously-false conclusion and claiming it's mine so you can
knock it down easily. That your post would stoop so low to make
me into a strawman is a mind-boggler monstrosity.
-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.] }
-----------------------
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" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
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
>
>
>
>
>
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.
