(On a personal note: do you have 2 kidneys? You could probably do with just one, you know. Maybe you should be FORCED to donate a kidney, especially if there is someone who might die without such a donation specifically from you. --And what if everyone agrees the person needing the kidney is more important than you?).
(I can remember Paul Ireland said something about tapeworms, but I cannot remember what he said).
mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
All,
I don't think we're going to find any peer-reviewed source that
says zygotes equal human beings. Since science usually splits
things into MORE classes (not LESS), then it will tend to
separate - not combine. Plus, when we discuss personhood and
rights and abortion issues, we're talking about more than one
discipline (and more than just science?). Maybe we could find
some kind of better "authority" by looking to other fields like
social sciences or political sciences or anthropology, but even
if we found something, it would probably not be credible or
definitive enough to satisfy all of us. Of course you can find
"zygote" in descriptions of "human beings", but only in terms of
its definition: "an early developmental stage". We can try to
find evidence here and there, but at best it will only be a
product of our own construct. For example maybe I look to "human
anatomy" for evidence. AH HA! There it is! The proof! Human
anatomy always shows a mature human body - not an undeveloped
one. Guess again, Marko; all you've found is another item for
contention.
The trouble with the abortion debate is that it takes perfect
definitions, of things we have not yet obtained, to win either
side. We must perfectly define such difficult things as "life"
and "human" and how they are distinct from all things not. We
also must better define "organism", "being", and "person" - and
their perfect synonyms, antonyms, associated terms,
non-associated terms, etc. Oops, I almost forgot "rights".
Defining that alone is an intimidating task, regarding whether we
call them "given", "attributed", "reserved", "created",
"granted", "protected", "natural", "political", "legal", 'civil",
"individual", "human", etc. Fat chance of all that being done
very soon to any semblance of general agreement.
But what the hell; that's no reason to not take a crack at rights
again: In the world of free communication, nothing is
self-evident, even the nose on your face. But relatively evident
are hierarchical survival instincts of animal species. In
general, especially with social species, more developed members
of the species have more rights. Of course the fact that human
rights are for humans only is a no-brainer (to most), but how
does an intelligent species decide between its cocoons and its
butterflies? Canadian Geese, and lots of other species, take a
gradual approach. The closer the eggs are to hatching, the more
fiercely they are defended. Right after laying, mother goose will
quickly abandon her eggs when confronted by a predator (when a
decision is necessary). Closer to hatching, she will fight to
protect them at great risk to herself. After hatching, the
goslings are even more fiercely defended. Looking at other animal
models might help us better understand natural rights for our
species.
But now enter a whole new view proposed by Paul Ireland and Mary
Dolan. (Mary, Paul may have thought of it first. But I did not
understand Paul's reference to a Tape Worm until I read your
recent post. Paul, you thought of this a long time ago, right?)
Considering this new perspective, we may not have to do any of
the above. All we need do is go ahead and recognize that fetuses
have the same rights as mature humans. We simply do not give them
EXTRA rights. Since mature humans do not have the right to feed
off of others against their will (according to Constitutional,
NAP and self-ownership principles), neither do fetuses. Under
this view, the only decisions left are issues regarding whether
"killing" the fetus prior to evacuating is a rights violation,
and issues regarding whether not feeding your infant is a rights
violation (child neglect). HA! No problem!
-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.] }
--------------------
Terry,
> In the references you quoted, I did not see the word zygote
equated
> to the term 'human being'
Interesting tactic: Reject explicit cites because they aren't
concise/readily available enough to suit you, and reject
concise/readily available cites because they aren't explicit
enough to
suit you.
> I don't see that extending the term 'human being' to include a
zygote
> is either justified or helpful to communication
Neither do I. Fortunately, no such "extension" is needed, since
the
term "human being" already does, and always has, included a
zygote.
Tom Knapp
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
--------------------~-->
Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy
technology. It's free.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
-----------------------------------------------------------------
---~->
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
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.
