Terry,

I have to admit, I cheated and read ahead a little. So I now
understand better why arguing pro-choice is best done without
challenging a fetus's "human-being" status. And I also understand
that "whole" can also mean a "whole part" / "whole stage" /
"whole portion".

-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.] }

-----

Mark, I really think you're torturing the wrong concepts in the
abortion debate. 

You mean 'whole' as in 'mature' or 'fully developed'  He
means 'whole' as in being an iteration of species home sapient.
The
word whole can apply in either context as far as I can see. 
Since 'personhood' is a far more important element in the human
abortion issue, the arguments should be about its criteria.  *IF*

a 'person' is indeed present and dependent upon a 'host' person
THEN
the debate moves to identification of respective
rights/obligations
of these two individuals. 

1.  Is a 'person' (entity with rights/obligations) present inside
the
human host? 

2.  What are the rights/obligations of any person present? 

3.  If a host person does not want to continue supporting a
dependent
person is 'fatal eviction' a moral option? 


Libertarians should not only be doing it freely, but also better
:)



-Terry Liberty Parker
PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48172 
 



ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics


YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS




Reply via email to