reasoned argument that works with any who are not already convinced.
In THIS forum which is about LIBERTARIANISM, arguments must proceed,
pro/con, from its basic principle: each person may do as they choose
of their own free will excepting, initiation, or credible threat of
initiation, of physical force upon the body or justly held
possessions of another person.
Do a better job of argumentation IF you want your advocacy to reach
beyond those who already agree with you.
-Terry Liberty Parker
LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48288
--- In [email protected], "W. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> At 18:23 5/18/2006, Terry L Parker wrote:
> >I think that the 'birth' as criteria for
Constitutional 'personhood'
> >was adopted as a matter of convenience; a clear delineation
> >commensurate with that time's technology.
> >
> >These days, human babies can be prematurely born by months. And
some
> >are naturally born 'brainless' (sans brain). Upon birth a human
is
> >still VERY dependent on others for basic life support. What
effect
> >might this lack of material 'agency' have on transendendly
> >moral 'personhood' (not just what is legal now)
> >
> >Here are *my* 'tentative' COMBINED criteria for
> >who or what gets to be regarded as a person:
> >
> >sentience- ability to consider essential
> >information about one's environment
> >(surroundings, situation and so on)
> >
> >agency- power to act in one's environment
> >
> >conscious volition- free will to intervene between
> >stimulus and response by making meaningful choices;
> >without which one can not be 'responsible' for
> >one's actions that interface with other persons
> >
> >Imo, 'personhood' is about individual sovereigns
> >(whose 'domains' are their own bodies and
> >justly held possessions) being free moral agents;
> >which still leaves room for acts of compassion :)
> >
> >Domains http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
> >
> >Morals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/37899
> >
> >
> >-Terry Liberty Parker
> >PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
> >at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48351
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> ><thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> >>
> >> Quoth Terry:
> >>
> >> > In some societies infanticide is NOT considered to be murder.
> >>
> >> That's precisely what I was referring to in another post (since
you
> >> posted this one) with respect to the "fetus fairy" argument.
> >>
> >> In the absence of an explanation as to how and why a "person"
> >> is/becomes a "person," there's no particular reason to believe
that
> >> that happens at the moment the doctor yanks the youngsun out and
> >> announces the birth. It could happen earlier. It could happen
later.
> >>
> >> L. Neil Smith has argued -- I'm not sure how serious versus
> >> hypothetical he intended it, but the argument was not
unreasonable -
> >-
> >> that children are just property, albeit very _valued_ property to
> >> which we have an instinctive biological attachment, until they
say
> >> "see ya, ma, see ya, pa" and walk off over the horizon in charge
of
> >> their own lives.
> >>
> >> When I characterize that argument as "not unreasonable," I mean
> >that I
> >> find it more reasonable than the position that a fetus passing
the
> >> cervix on the way out is not a "person," but that it magically
> >somehow
> >> is a "person" once the feet clear the labia.
> >>
> >> Tom Knapp
>
> A human being has a soul. "Quickening", when the soul enters
> the body, happens at about 3 months after conception. As I
> recall, this was considered within Roe v. Wade.
>
> When someone dies, the soul leaves the body. What remains
> is a body, not a living, human being.
>
> Mr. Parker's previously criteria are good gauges of whether
> the soul resides within the body. However, Terry Schiavo
> could be an exception to these guidelines. Most of her
> brain was gone, unable to do much at all, but was still
> alive until they pulled the plug.
>
> Considering a person "property" whether a child or a slave,
> is merely a label. How you treat that person under your
> care is the crucial matter. However, restricting someone's
> liberty, who is fully able to govern themselves and take
> responsibility for their own actions, is an anathema to
> our libertarian instincts.
>
>
> Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-
start-page/
> $8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
>
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.
