conscious volition (free will) may theoretically have personhood; not
unlike that of a human being?
IDENTIFYING who or what gets to have personhood recognized is a key
element of the abortion rights issue.
-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>
> This is why I must reject to cave to the desire of individuals who
> wish to close debate down to a scale they deem managable and
> benificial to there goals rather than benificial to impartiality.
>
> Social security, titles, etc are part of legal rights dirived from
> the state. I reject the idea that LIFE is protected only by legal
> rights, making it little more than a privledge. Terry is very
> ademant at how he defines a person, I am very ademant as to what I
> describe as the human right to life. This is not given by the state
> by an inate inalienable right.
>
> Legal rights may require the devices of the state such as a social
> security number to label and track us for life. Human rights are
not
> dependant on such things.
>
> hu·man n.
> 1)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
> sapiens.
> 2)A person.
>
> right n.
> 1) Something that is due to a person
> 2) Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to
> animals by moral principle.
>
> life n.
> 1)The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from
> dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such
as
> metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or
> adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
> 2)The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
>
>
> Human Right to Life, do you believe in it or is your life the
> property of the superstate, forget everything and ask yourself that.
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@> wrote:
> >
> > I would just like to humbly add my own to this masterful exposure
> > of anti-abortionism:
> >
> > If fetuses are persons, then I should be able to will my estate
> > to my pregnant niece's. So that means fetuses will have to,
> > immediately after conception, acquire things like names and
> > genders and ss-numbers. Of course that also means that my other
> > niece's fetus would have the right to contest my will. I can see
> > it now: both wombs in court, wired to ultrasound, with an
> > "interpreter". Well whomever wins better not forget to pay the
> > inheritance and property taxes or they might end up in fetus-jail
> > (and loose their freedom and their rights).
> >
> > -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.] }
> >
> >
> > -----------------------
> >
> >
> > esbuck@ wrote:
> >
> > I would argue that a just law is one which is enforceable in
> > every case and
> > one in which the costs of enforcement do not exceed what is
> > acceptable, are
> > not worse than the crime, the cost/benefit argument.
> >
> > Most Libertarians would say the laws against smoking marijuana
> > are bad on
> > both counts. Only a fraction of smokers can be apprehended,
> > which makes
> > enforcement arbitrary and capricious. And the cost of
> > enforcement, home invasions
> > by SWAT teams, illegal searches, etc., plus maintaining prisons
> > and breaking
> > up families and foregoing the productive output of the convicted
> > person, etc.
> > etc. exceeds any social benefit from having a smoker use tobacco
> > instead of
> > weed.
> >
> > Something like half, possibly two thirds, of fertilized eggs
> > (people, to the
> > pro-lifers) spontaneously abort or fail to implant or die early
> > in the
> > gestation. In most cases, the mother doesn't even know.
> > However, if abortion is
> > homicide, then every lifeless zygote should be treated as a dead
> > human.
> > First, it must be found. All tampons and sanitary napkins must
> > be turned in to
> > the county medical examine to determine if a fertilized egg is
> > present and, if
> > so, to issue a death certificate. Then the grand jury (a bunch
> > of ignorant
> > and bigoted clods who don't have the wit to be excused from jury
> > duty) must
> > determine whether the death was "natural" or "murder". (How are
> > they supposed
> > to determine that?) Then, of course, there must be a proper
> > burial or
> > cremation of the corpse, including, in most states, a coffin and
> > a designated
> > cemetery. It the death of the zygote was not "natural", perhaps
> > a third of the
> > cases, both the mother and the doctor are guilty of
> > pre-meditated murder, and
> > subject, in most states, to the death penalty. Jailing or
> > executing two
> > adults is very expensive, and their children become wards of the
> > state, and their
> > student loans are defaulted on, and they don't pay taxes, and...
> > It there
> > is anything less than 100 per cent prosecution and severe
> > penalties for
> > feticide, then we are making a mockery of the law and depriving
> > other murderers,
> > like drive-by shooters, of the equal protection (or neglect) of
> > the law. What
> > is it about "murder" you don't understand, Ms. Juror?
> >
> > Additional questions: Suppose a teen age girl has a late period
> > and doesn't
> > tell anyone, flushing her tampon down the toilet? Can she be
> > prosecuted for
> > abuse of a corpse? Tampering with evidence? Does she have an
> > excuse of
> > "accidental death" because she miscounted her birth control
> > pills, took too few
> > and then too many, resulting in a accidental conception and an
> > accidental
> > abortion? What if she claims it was God's way of giving her a
> > second chance,
> > because she was genuinely contrite about letting Johnny do that
> > thing?
> >
> > Then there is the Terry Schiavo problem. If two doctors
> > determine that an
> > adult has no functioning brain, the adult can be declared "brain
> > dead" and
> > deprived of further life support. What if a pregnant woman goes
> > to two doctors
> > who pronounce her blastocyst "brainless" (no neural tube formed
> > yet), can
> > life support be withdrawn? If not, why the double standard?
> >
> > Extending the logic of an embryo of a human is a human, then an
> > embryo of a
> > pine tree is a pine tree. If I burn a pine cone, I have burned a
> > whole
> > forest! that should be good for several years in jail.
> >
>
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.
