you are right ... PROVE IT.
[Tom, you also have to 'prove it' (your assertions) too -TLP ]
PAUL: Science and empirical observation do not say Iâm wrong. They
prove me to be correct. Science proves that human DNA is not human
life. Science proves that reflexive actions are not human life.
Science proves that a beating heart is not a human life. Science
proves that eyes, nose, ears, head, feet, arms legs, hands, etc. do
not constitute human life.
[Paul, these are your 'assertions' sans URLs to CONCISE credible sources to back your claim that these things are NOT 'human life' The term 'human life' can be used to mean 'personhood' OR it can also mean this life form is using 'human' dna thus is 'human life'
-TLP ]
Science proves that human life (as opposed to other forms of life) is
defined by a level of self-awareness (sentience) that no other form of
life is capable of on earth. This can be measured in beta brain
waves, which exist even in a coma, in a human being but which do not
exist in a fetus.
[Paul, your attempt to exclude the term 'human life' to ALSO mean life form arising from human dna before developing sentience is inttelectually dishonest; AND won't work. -TLP ]
A zygote has no sentience or any of the other things I mentioned and
has no human life. A zygote has no human life. It has the POTENTIAL
for human life if it is allowed to develop into a human being.
TOM: Good. Since no magic is needed to describe why, feel free to do so.
PAUL: I already have.
[Paul, no, you have not; you've only claimed to have. -TLP ]
TOM: 1) Person A (age 40, Ph.D. in astrophysics) was morbidly obese,
but recently had a surgery which left him weighing 100 pounds less,
but with an unsightly abdominal skin flap.
2) Person B is a midget (age 25, M.A. in history), two feet four
inches in height and weighing 40 pounds.
3) Person C kidnaps and knocks out Person A and Person B, makes an
incision in Person A's abdominal flap, stuffs Person B and an oxygen
tank inside, and sews Person A back up.
Do Person B's rights disappear? If so, why?
PAUL: Can you cite a single example of this ever happening?
[Paul, that is not relevent; he's stating a hypothetical. -TLP ]
I didnât think so. You are not comparing apples and oranges, you are comparing apples and trains. But letâs have some fun.
The midget has already been born. At which time they obtained
UNALIENABLE rights. Having been born, they took ownership of their
body and got human rights. A fetus never got rights because it was
never born.
If the psychotic PhD you described kidnaps someone, he has already
violated the rights of that person. If he sews them into his body, or
any other dangerous place, he has also violated their rights. The
Midget does not lose his rights because they are unalienable rights
obtained at BIRTH. The midget is also not a BIOLIGICAL parasite.
Also the midget does not obtain nutrients BIOLOGICALLY from a host.
Letâs say the midget cut open the PhDâs extra skin and climbed in, and
started swallowing all the food the PhD ate, and was draining the
health of the PhD. For the sake of argument, letâs say the midget had
so acclimated himself to this situation he couldnât live if removed.
The PhD never wanted the midget to be in his body in the first place.
To claim the Midget has a right to live in the body of the PhD simply
because he could not live outside the body of the PhD is ludicrous.
To suggest the PhD owes an existence to the midget at the expense of
his own health (or not) against his own will is also in direct
violation of the self-ownership portion of the libertarian philosophy.
In short, NOBODY is owed an existence at the expense of a
non-consenting other and we obtain our rights at birth. Once we are
born and take ownership of ourselves and obtain human rights, they
canât be taken away. If we havenât been born yet, we have no rights
to violate.
TOM: How and why?
PAUL: Because we have SOLE DOMINION over our own body and all
organisms within that body. We alone decide life or death for those
organisms (assuming isnât a person who has already been born and
already obtained rights at birth) and our decisions are absolute and
unquestionable.
TOM: Except, of course, to anyone who has ever taken Biology 101 or
cracked the textbook.
PAUL: No, it applies to them too. In fact it applies to the most
skilled and educated biologists on earth and every single medical
scientist on earth.
TOM: You've offered an assertion -- without so much as one iota of
evidence to support that assertion -- that nothing inside anyone
else's body has rights.
PAUL: No, Iâve offered logical reasonable, and libertarian arguments,
and backed them up with medical fact. If you claim that we have
rights before birth, you are saying that we do not have SOLE DOMINION
over our own body or the organisms within. You canât have both of
these at the same time. If you say a fetus has rights, you are saying
that people have a right to an existence at the expense of
non-consenting others. If you say a fetus has rights before birth,
you are saying a tapeworm has more rights than the host it lives in.
This is diametrically opposed to libertarianism.
TOM: Two assertions aren't an "explanation." They're just two assertions.
PAUL: I didnât merely make assertions; I backed them up with
libertarian philosophy and accurate historical fact. Human rights
have ALWAYS been considered birthrights since the first person
recognized that human rights existed and were part of natural law.
TOM: In other words, "Paul Ireland said it, Paul Ireland believes it,
that settles it."
PAUL: Wrong. In other words, believing in SOLE DOMINION is logically
diametrically opposed to believing an organism inside a person can
have rights over and above the person in which it resides. SOLE
DOMINION is a hallmark of libertarian philosophy, and is opposed to
anyone living at the expense of a non-consenting other.
It has nothing to do with what PAUL believes. I know your frequent
and empty non-argument is to suggest anything I say is a believe
held by me alone or to claim itâs true because âPaul says soâ, but the
truth is what Iâm saying has been said before by virtually every great
libertarian thinker before me and is recognized as truth by
scientists, biologists, and consistently logical libertarians.
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.
