have claimed that a fetus has human rights. Now you call it
"property". Which is it? Do you think humans can be the property of
other humans? He has no redress for lost property because he hasn't
lost any property. He had no property to begin with.
A man having deposited sperm into a woman doesn't give him ownership
of anything. He has absolutely no legal rights over a fetus in
another person and neither does the fetus.
You said you want to remove the influence of the state. Making
abortions illegal would increase the influence of the state and would
cause people to go to prison for something that isn't a crime and does
not harm anyone but themselves. I on the otherhand want to protect
our unlimited right to SOLE DOMINION over our own body and the
organisms within that body (whether they be cancer cells, a tape worm,
a tumor, or a fetus) and take the decision completely away from
everyone but the one person who has 100% of the legitimate decision
making power over the situation.
--- 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.
