You are correct about my misuse of "giving". I meant
"attributing/recognizing". I agree that rights are not given. I
was just being lazy writing my post.
Gotta run now; will try to respond more later.
-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 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.)
I see one problem right there: Who's talking about "giving"
rights to
anyone or anything? We'd have to go way off another tangent to
thrash
that out; my assumption was that all parties in this discussion
agreed
that rights aren't "given," but rather that they exist and that
the
questions are a) who possesses them, b) when do they come into
existence, and therefore c) when do we _recognize_ them?
Your argument as it boils down now seems to be that:
1) The entity is homo sapiens sapiens; and
2) That it has exited the womb and started doing the things that
all
mammals do when they exit the womb.
While I've tacitly agreed to (1), at least until we run into
intelligent aliens or something, I don't see the relevance of
(2). The
characteristics listed are not uniquely human characteristics,
nor do
they indicate sentience/sapience, nor is there any clear reason
to
believe that they are the basis for a presumption of personhood
or
rights. If you believe they are, please feel free to prove your
case
... but be advised that I'm not sure I belong in this argument
any
more. I wanted to establish a very _narrow_ point (that a human
being
is a human being, regardless of whether or not it is a "person").
At the point where we are now, it's difficult to tell if you're
claiming parturition as the point of "human beingness" (a
biologically
unsustainable claim) or as the point of "personhood" (a claim I
have
yet to see convincing evidence for, but an arguable one). If the
former, I may still have a role in the discussion. If the latter,
I'm
happy to get back to lurk status on it and hopefully learn
something.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
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.
