-TLP
--- In [email protected], "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Each and every single thing I've said with regard to the abortion
> 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.
>
Paul, MOST of the so-called 'argumentation' is already 'muddy'
> 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.
>
Paul, YOU are right about much of what is said by anti-abortion
advocates; but there is also sloppy thinking by advocates of abortion
rights. Thought not perfect, your advocacy is improving, imo.
> 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.),
Paul, this is a good argument for 'personhood' To claim that it's
not a 'human' life form is absurd on its face. The critter is alive
and devoloping from human dna. Your attempt to ban the use of the
phrase 'human life' from meaning anything but 'personhood' is a
futile fraud.
> 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.
>
Paul, this is a valid point regarding 'personhood' but becomes
ridiculous if you deny that the critter is alive and using human
dna.
> None of those things alone amounts to human life. They must all be
> present or the organism has no human life.
>
Paul, it's alive and using human dna, which makes your statement
absurd on its face.
> 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.
Paul, this and the statement below are needless, OFF-topic ad hominem
which got by me. Tom will respond but you're posts are moderated and
you will not be allowed to add more off-topic ad hominem to this
forum.
Do you understand how this juvenile behavior discredits your
advocacy; just like when you see it in others?
It's like a little league
> player trying to tell Derek Jeter how to bat.
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> <thomaslknapp@> 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.
