>WD, if a human baby is born without a brain (tragic but happens) do
>you assert that it's still possesses 'personhood'
If it is breathing and it's heart is beating, yes.
>and if so, why?
Because it has a soul. The soul will only stay with
the body if the body can function.
However, I've never heard of a baby born without a brain
actually being born alive.
>
>-Terry Liberty Parker
>PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
>at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48351
>
>
>
>--- In [email protected], "W. D." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> At 18:23 5/18/2006, Terry L Parker wrote:
>> >I think that the 'birth' as criteria for
>Constitutional 'personhood'
>> >was adopted as a matter of convenience; a clear delineation
>> >commensurate with that time's technology.
>> >
>> >These days, human babies can be prematurely born by months. And
>some
>> >are naturally born 'brainless' (sans brain). Upon birth a human
>is
>> >still VERY dependent on others for basic life support. What
>effect
>> >might this lack of material 'agency' have on transendendly
>> >moral 'personhood' (not just what is legal now)
>> >
>> >Here are *my* 'tentative' COMBINED criteria for
>> >who or what gets to be regarded as a person:
>> >
>> >sentience- ability to consider essential
>> >information about one's environment
>> >(surroundings, situation and so on)
>> >
>> >agency- power to act in one's environment
>> >
>> >conscious volition- free will to intervene between
>> >stimulus and response by making meaningful choices;
>> >without which one can not be 'responsible' for
>> >one's actions that interface with other persons
>> >
>> >Imo, 'personhood' is about individual sovereigns
>> >(whose 'domains' are their own bodies and
>> >justly held possessions) being free moral agents;
>> >which still leaves room for acts of compassion :)
>> >
>> >Domains http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/30419
>> >
>> >Morals http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/37899
>> >
>> >
>> >-Terry Liberty Parker
>> >PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond
>> >at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48351
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
>> ><thomaslknapp@> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Quoth Terry:
>> >>
>> >> > In some societies infanticide is NOT considered to be murder.
>> >>
>> >> That's precisely what I was referring to in another post (since
>you
>> >> posted this one) with respect to the "fetus fairy" argument.
>> >>
>> >> In the absence of an explanation as to how and why a "person"
>> >> is/becomes a "person," there's no particular reason to believe
>that
>> >> that happens at the moment the doctor yanks the youngsun out and
>> >> announces the birth. It could happen earlier. It could happen
>later.
>> >>
>> >> L. Neil Smith has argued -- I'm not sure how serious versus
>> >> hypothetical he intended it, but the argument was not
>unreasonable -
>> >-
>> >> that children are just property, albeit very _valued_ property to
>> >> which we have an instinctive biological attachment, until they
>say
>> >> "see ya, ma, see ya, pa" and walk off over the horizon in charge
>of
>> >> their own lives.
>> >>
>> >> When I characterize that argument as "not unreasonable," I mean
>> >that I
>> >> find it more reasonable than the position that a fetus passing
>the
>> >> cervix on the way out is not a "person," but that it magically
>> >somehow
>> >> is a "person" once the feet clear the labia.
>> >>
>> >> Tom Knapp
>>
>> A human being has a soul. "Quickening", when the soul enters
>> the body, happens at about 3 months after conception. As I
>> recall, this was considered within Roe v. Wade.
>>
>> When someone dies, the soul leaves the body. What remains
>> is a body, not a living, human being.
>>
>> Mr. Parker's previously criteria are good gauges of whether
>> the soul resides within the body. However, Terry Schiavo
>> could be an exception to these guidelines. Most of her
>> brain was gone, unable to do much at all, but was still
>> alive until they pulled the plug.
>>
>> Considering a person "property" whether a child or a slave,
>> is merely a label. How you treat that person under your
>> care is the crucial matter. However, restricting someone's
>> liberty, who is fully able to govern themselves and take
>> responsibility for their own actions, is an anathema to
>> our libertarian instincts.
>>
>>
>> Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-
>start-page/
>> $8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
Start Here to Find It Fast! -> http://www.US-Webmasters.com/best-start-page/
$8.77 Domain Names -> http://domains.us-webmasters.com/
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.
