issue is a fact and is backed by science. Each and every single thing
I've said is also backed by more than a thousand years of libertarian
philosophy. You claim that you seek to improve the quality of the
arguments, yet you seem to be one of the people guilty of trying to
muddy the arguments.
Nothing I've said is superstitious or religious or involves a fairy.
In fact if anyone is relying on superstition or religion, it's those
who claim a fetus has a soul, or that it has human life.
Human life is defined by being sentient and acting on its own volition
(non-reflexive actions and non-reflexive response to stimuli.... which
rules out sucking thumbs, moving away from pain, etc.), by not being a
BIOLOGICAL parasite (don't give me the social parasite sleeping on the
couch nonsense), meaning it is not residing within or receiving
nutrients from the body of a non-consenting other in addition to other
qualities such as human DNA, etc.
None of those things alone amounts to human life. They must all be
present or the organism has no human life.
I find it ironic that you claim the level of debate is below the level
you'd like it to be when both Mark and I have been debating with more
scientific fact, logic, reason, biological realism, and solid
libertarian philosophy than you have. It's like a little league
player trying to tell Derek Jeter how to bat.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> > I think I see your point, but I suspect Tom of getting ready to
> > think about starting to prepare to try to attribute rights to
> > fetuses - by first giving them the status of a whole human being,
> > and trying to get us to agree. I know he has claimed a degree of
> > neutrality on the issue, but he has also been critical of
> > abortion elements and is obviously trying to bump up the
> > legal/political status of the fetus. OOH, why argue with him
> > until he goes out on that limb that you describe? OTOH, he is
> > incorrect about the "wholeness" of the fetus, no matter the
> > existence or non-existence of an agenda. (You know me; gotta
> > argue them fine points.)
>
> Mark,
>
> I have not in any way intimated that I am possessed of some kind of
> "neutrality." I am not*. But I'm also not interested in arguing
> abortion _per se_. What I am interested in is improving the quality of
> argument about abortion from the "pro-choice" side.
>
> My "agenda" is to TRY to get the "pro-choice" side to stop arguing
> from superstitious/religious "Fetus Fairy" premises and to instead
> make logical arguments from factual premises. I have reasons for
> wanting to accomplish this, but those reasons are not related to any
> given outcome of further debate on abortion. They're related to
> improving the quality of libertarian argument, including of the
> "pro-choice" variety.
>
> Regards,
> Tom Knapp
>
> * I am nominally on the "pro-life" side of the issue -- but I just
> don't consider it an "important" issue in the _political_ sense
> insofar as there's no likely constituency waiting for libertarian
> representation on it.
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
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.
