expense of a non-consenting other, is to claim that a tapeworm has
more rights over the body of its host than the host has for itself.
--- In [email protected], Mary Dolan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Mark, I would like to emphasize that I think whoever would not go
out of his or her way to, say, donate a pint of blood, when he or she
is the only possible donor, in a life-or-death situation, is almost
certainly a vile and abhorrent person. Still, the choice is between
letting a vile and abhorrent person have his way--or legislating that
people can be FORCED to relinquish or to donate pieces or capacities
of their bodies against their wills. The latter alternative is REALLY
abhorrent.
>
> (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.
