rights...period. It doesn't matter what that organism happens to be.
Until the moment it is outside the body of another, it has no rights,
only the host body has rights over its body and the contents of that
body. Only at the moment of birth do we own ourselves, and have the
right to life and not one second before. After we are born, nobody
can take those rights away.
--- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > 3. There is no argument. Birth is when we get rights and not one
> > second before. We are BORN with certain unalienable rights
> including
> > life.
>
> How do we determined that birth is the exact moment we obtain these
> rights and not one second before? With all of the emphasis science
> has placed on when we are not considered a "person" and, according to
> you, have no rights whatsoever, then what criteria does birth meet
> that a child in the process of being born does not have?
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > 1. Getting an abortion is not an act of aggression against anyone.
> >
> > 2. Getting an abortion does not infringe upon the rights of anyone.
> >
> > 3. There is no argument. Birth is when we get rights and not one
> > second before. We are BORN with certain unalienable rights
> including
> > life.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <buckygilbert@>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Good reply Tom.
> > >
> > > >>You
> > > > smoke three packs of cigarettes a day for 30 years, you
> contract
> > > lung
> > > > cancer ... does "accepting the consequences" mean that you are
> not
> > > > free to seek treatment for that cancer?
> > >
> > > No, because seeking treatment for cancer is not an act of
> aggression
> > > towards anyone.
> > >
> > > > > Likewise, by
> > > > > having intercourse one consents to the possible consequences
> of
> > > such
> > > > > actions, whether they desire children or not.
> > > >
> > > > Even leaving aside rape, etc., there are many possible
> consequences
> > > to
> > > > sexual intercourse. Does "accepting the consequences" mean
> refusing
> > > to
> > > > use penicillin if one contracts syphilis?
> > >
> > > Again, the use of penicilin does not infringe upon the rights of
> any
> > > other person.
> > >
> > > I'm not going to argue whether a zygote/embryo/fetus is a person,
> > > rather it is a potential human life that will, under most
> > > circumstances, become a fully functioning "person." The argument
> over
> > > when life begins is, to myself, a bit of an arbitrary debate
> because
> > > it can also be turned in the opposite direction. Rather than
> arguing
> > > whether a zygot is a person, a fetus is a person, etc., one
> could
> > > take that logic to its other extreme and argue about what age we
> > > become human. If one is not a "person" 10 minutes before birth
> and
> > > has no rights, what grants it personhood 10 minutes later, a week
> > > later, or even a month or year later. Should science not
> determine
> > > an age whereby we become "persons" since they clearly have
> > > established when we are not to be considered human? Perhaps we
> should
> > > set an age limit, ahhh eighteen? Twentyone? Maybe a test whereby
> we
> > > can determine whether one has reached the mental and physical
> > > capabilities of a "person." Whatever we decide, it should
> therefore
> > > be completely legal to end any lifeform that has not yet become
> > > a "person." If it is not an initiation of force to end the life a
> > > fetus at any age, then why should we arbitrarily declare that
> after
> > > birth it is an initiation of force.
> > >
> > > I know that all sounds far fetched but if we are going to set
> such
> > > strict standards for determining when a zygote/embryo/fetus is to
> > > actually be considered a living "person" then we must also extend
> > > that logic to birth and therafter. Now how do you prove that a
> > > newborn is a "person" with rights, when moments before it had no
> > > rights and was not a person. What criteria should we establish
> to
> > > determine this.
> > >
> > > Very interesting debate. Thanks for the reply and I hope to hear
> from
> > > you again soon.
> > >
> > > Bucky
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
> > > <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Bucky,
> > > >
> > > > You wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > How is a pregnant woman a non-consentual other? If I smoke 3
> > > packs
> > > > > of cigaretts a day for 30 years knowing full well of the
> dangers,
> > > I
> > > > > have chosen to accept the consequences of such actions.
> > > >
> > > > By which, presumably, you mean the possibility that you will
> > > contract
> > > > cancer. And that's true enough ... but take it beyond that
> point.
> > > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > One of the consequences of sexual intercourse is, indeed,
> possible
> > > > pregnancy. The pro-life argument is that one of the options
> > > > (abortion) for addressing that possible consequence is immoral.
> In
> > > > particular, the pro-life _libertarian_ argument is that
> resorting to
> > > > that option is an initiation of force.
> > > >
> > > > But the mere fact that pregnancy is a possible consequence of
> sexual
> > > > intercourse is not sufficient to sustain that argument. In
> order to
> > > > sustain it, at least two things must be demonstrated:
> > > >
> > > > 1) That the zygote/embryo/fetus is a "person" with rights; and
> > > >
> > > > 2) That abortion violates one or more of those rights.
> > > >
> > > > Demonstrating those two things is a pretty tall order, but
> that's
> > > the
> > > > task for anyone attempting to make a _libertarian_ pro-life
> > > argument.
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > 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.
