fetus isn't a human being. At the moment of birth it BECOMES a human
being. No "magic" is needed to describe why. NOTHING within the body
of a person has any rights. Regardless of what kind of DNA the
organism has, it has human rights, not even the right to life itself.
At the moment of birth, the biological parasite (aka fetus) is removed
from the body of its host and it is endowed with human rights
including self-ownership, etc.
No magic is needed, yet all the difference in the world exists. In a
matter of 1 second it goes from no human rights to full human rights.
The completely untenable position that a zygote is a human being is
illogical and makes those who claim such seem unreasonable.
I've presented a logical, reasonable, intelligent, and non-insulting
response to explain why it is that birth is when we obtain rights, and
not a second before. I haven't used mythical figures like "god" or a
"fairy". I haven't claimed something is has human life when it
doesn't. I haven't dehumanized anyone. I haven't overstated my
position or exaggerated in any way.
You either believe in sole dominion over our body and the organisms
within it, or you don't.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark,
>
> > For someone who is not arguing abortion, your recent post history
> > appears very misleading. But I think I understand your motive a
> > little better now; it sounds kind of reasonable. But why would a
> > "nominal pro-lifer" want to improve the arguments of
> > pro-choicers?
>
> First and foremost, because there are always going to be pro-choice
> libertarians, and there are always going to be pro-life libertarians.
>
> I'm more than happy to work with libertarians of both opinions on
> issues we agree on -- and I don't much care to work on, or debate, the
> abortion issue at all, since there's simply no large constituency for
> EITHER libertarian conclusion on it -- but I realize it is going to
> come up whether I want it to or not. And when it does come up, I don't
> like to see EITHER group embarrass libertarianism generally with poor
> arguments.
>
> In reality, the "pro-choice" side has the advantage of position:
>
> - The "pro-life" position has the burden of proof to prove that a) the
> fetus is a "person" with rights, and b) that those rights are violated
> in an abortion.
>
> - The "pro-choice" position automatically prevails (in a libertarian
> context) if the "pro-life" position doesn't meet that burden of proof.
>
> At the point we are at in the debate this time around, the ultimate,
> solid, "pro-choice" argument is: "Prove that the fetus is a 'person'
> with rights, and that abortion violates those rights." That's the end
> of it unless the "pro-life" side delivers on the demand.
>
> Retreating into the demonstrably false claim that the fetus isn't a
> "human being" immediately damages the "pro-choice" side's credibility,
> which makes it easier for the "pro-life" side to fudge on meeting its
> own burden of proof.
>
> Whether you are "pro-choice" or "pro-life," making bad arguments makes
> you look bad. And if you are doing so as a proclaimed libertarian,
> then it makes libertarianism look bad. I don't want libertarianism to
> look bad, so I want both sides to make good arguments.
>
> > What is the "fetus fairy" argument?
>
> The "fetus fairy" argument is that the embryo isn't a "person," and
> the fetus isn't a "person," but that at the moment it emerges from the
> womb (or some time in the preceding milliseconds), it becomes a
> "person" just in time for the doctor to pull said "person" out, slap
> it on the ass and tell the mother its gender.
>
> This presumably involves magic -- the "fetus fairy" swoops down,
> steals the fetus, and replaces it with a "person" -- or else some
> unexplained source of "personhood which" beams rays of "personhood"
> around the cosmos ... rays which can penetrate leadlined shelters 20
> stories below the earth, but which are stopped cold by a uterine wall.
>
> What I am basically saying is that in the absence of some reasoned
> argument as to how or why the instant of birth is the moment of
> transformation to "personhood," there's no particular reason to
> believe that that transformation occurs at that particular time rather
> than at some earlier or later point.
>
> > And isn't the pro-choice argument already vastly more scientific
> > than the pro-life/anti-abortion one?
>
> That remains to be seen.
>
> So far in this particular thread, the "pro-life" side as represented
> by me has been rigorously scientific on the sole point being argued,
> while the "pro-choice" side has not been scientific at all.
>
> Usually, that changes once the "pro-choice" side realizes that it's
> anti-scientific, counter-factual arguments that human beings are not,
> in fact, human beings, aren't going to work.
>
> Once it gets past that point and into arguments on the nature of
> "personhood," then the "pro-life" side often derails itself with
> religious arguments about souls and such, while the "pro-choice" side
> tends to start looking into things like the time of
> commencement/quality of brain activity and such.
>
> What converted me from a hardcore "pro-choice" position to a nominal
> "pro-life" position was an argument from indeterminacy and comparative
> cost. The reason that position is only nominal is that I still haven't
> seen the "pro-life" side make the ultimately dispositive proof.
>
> 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.
