Tom,

I guess I assumed too much by figuring no one was considering
giving rights to any other species than ours. So, to amend my
criteria, I need to give it the heading "For Homo sapiens". But
I'm guessing that doesn't fix the problem either. Why not?
(Looking for that damned screwdriver again.)

-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,

> But the "Fetus Fairy" sounds less like a pro-choice argument
and
> more like pro-life name-calling. If that's your example of a
> religious argument of pro-choice, then whatever I call someone
> makes them so. That's got to be some kind of logical fallacy,
but
> I don't know the name. The claim that there's no reason that
> parturition should impart personhood is a creation of the
> pro-life camp, as is the strawman conclusion "therefore they
must
> believe in a fetus fairy". It's simply a variation of this:
"Herb
> is crazy. Why is Herb crazy? Because anyone who believes in
> evolution MUST be crazy."

Okay, first of all, I didn't say that there's no reason that
parturition should impart personhood. What I said was _the case
hasn't
been made that it does_.

If you want to go where no pro-choice advocate has gone before
and
offer actual evidence that it does, feel free. In the absence of
such
evidence, I have no more obligation to assume it than I have to
assume
the existence of a deity, the guilt of a defendant in a criminal
case,
or anything else. If you think that parturition is the point of
personhood, it is YOU who assumes the burden of proof -- just as
the
burden of proof falls on the pro-lifer if he names some other
point
such as conception.

> There are plenty of huge transformations that take place during
> parturition to explain initiation into personhood.

Then explain them already.

> Pro-life: "What's so special about parturition that it imparts
> personhood?"
> Pro-choice: "Gosh, I don't know...maybe it's the many major
> biological changes that take place: loss of mothers nutrient
> supply through umbilical cord; first breath of air in lungs;
> first sound through vocal chords; first meal through alimentary
> tract; first defecation & urination; first fart; first burp;
> first vomit; first sight(?); organs and systems start to
function
> fully/independently; desires and objections obviously start to
> function fully/independently; I could go on."

You have GOT to be fucking kidding. Name a single one of those
things
that doesn't occur in EVERY mammal at or shortly after
parturition.
Are all mammals "persons?"

> Apparently the pro-lifers have convinced pro-choicers that
these
> mean nothing and something more has to be demonstrated.

Eating, burping, farting, shitting, pissing, pukking, breathing,
making noises, seeing, and having preferences and objections have
never before, to my knowledge, been cited as the criteria of
personhood. I guess I'm going to have to compensate my cat for
its
life of slavery.

> It's
> funny that most of the time the pro-lifers call parturition
"the
> miracle of birth", but when it comes to abortion, they drop the
> religious reference, do a 180 and ask what's so special about
> birth and accuse pro-choicers of believing in the Fetus Fairy.

I don't cut the pro-lifers any slack on the "God puts the soul
there
at conception" bullshit, and I'm not going to cut the
pro-choicers any
slack for similar bullshit. It's just that simple.

Regards,
Tom Knapp




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