this forum I expect to see rational arguments from each of you to
support your assertions; 'cuz they do' or 'cuz everyone (or at least
I) sez so' and other such time/bandwidth wasters don't cut it
anymore.
If you're going to advocate, do it well :)
-Terry Liberty Parker
Owner/moderator,
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Then, nothing new from what I have said but maybee you will aprove
> of the format better? A person in the legal sense is an entity with
> rights under law. Life is a human right, not a privledge given by
> law. Regaurdless of who falls under personhood for legal rights,
> human rights are extended to all humans, citizen or not.
>
> Secondly, an adult male as a citizen of our country has not only
> human rights, but the personhood legal rights aswell. If he has a
> child, and with out his consent the life of that child, to pass a
> law such as Paul suggest the LP advocate, would strip him of his
> legal right as a person to seek redress for injuries to himself or
> his property.
>
> Thirdly, as far as what is on topic in this forumn, the home page
> says this is a place for maximizing personal rights and limiting
the
> role of the state. There is a fuzzy stalemate between the
maximizing
> perosnal rights, but as far as limiting the role of state I have
not
> heard any thing on this topic. I think my point of view that the
> federal goverment should have little or no roll in this at all as
> oppossed to Paul's position advocating federal protections of what
I
> have already expressed my opinion as the removal of the legal right
> to redress of a full fledged person (one that even Paul must
> acknowledge as a person).
>
> Lastly, Paul's baseless asertion that living fetuses are actualy
> nothing more than bricks is no more on topic than me asserting my
> belief that he is wrong, were is your request for him to get on
> topic?
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Apparently!
> >
> > 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"
<uncoolrabbit@>
> > 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.
