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
There are three essential areas of moral concern about human abortion:
1. Personhood- At what point do rights and obligations accrue to a
developing individual?
The spectrum of opinion is from the moment of conception
(spiritual, before physical zygote) thru physical gestation to birth
and a few years beyond (human infanticide is actually NOT regarded as
murder in some societies)
2. Obligation- If a developing individual is deemed a 'person'
what, if any, duty to that person exists, to provide support?
No person has an 'automatic' claim on the resources of another
person to provide them with support. But, did voluntary action
by the 'host' person create an obligation to the 'dependent' person?
3. Fatal Eviction- If a 'host' person has a right to deny support
to a 'dependent' person, does said 'host' person's right to 'evict'
the 'dependent' person include doing so in such a way that is fatal
to said dependent?
People of sincere conscience can be found on all sides of these three
concerns.
'The unexamined life is not worth living'
Socrates, in Plato, Dialogues, Apology
Greek philosopher in Athens (469 BC - 399 BC)
at http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/24198.html
Please also enter the word consciousness at http://www.Google.com
-Terry Liberty Parker
see: 'Your Freedom and the Rigths of Others'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/22990
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> TLP,
>
> Sorry, I'm still missing your point. Or maybe you have none other
> than to disprove mine. Surely you are not supporting the position
> that infants do not have rights and can be killed. Maybe I'm
> being dense, but you're gonna have to elaborate more than what
> you have to get this one through to this ole boy.
>
> -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.] }
>
> -------------------
>
>
>
>
> A mouse also wants to live, but I don't think many would regard
> it as
> a person (entity able to have rights/obligations)
>
> Please see what I wrote in 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
>
> -TLP
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@>
> wrote:
> >
> > Terry P,
> >
> > I think I've seen you refer to infanticide before, but I could
> > not comprehend your point. Here you go again. You seem to be
> > either critical of the NAP, or supporting infanticide. I'm sure
> > you are going somewhere interesting. Maybe you can explain more
> > after I take your challenge: An infant is obviously interested
> in
> > surviving/living. It demonstrates this in a number of ways.
> > Conversely, it shows a disinterest in suffering/dying with
> clear
> > non-consent.
> >
> > -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.] }
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> >
> >
> > While I agree with the described compassionate view of most
> > people, I
> > challenge you to identify how & why infanticide, per se, is
> > prohibited by a universal application of libertarianism's non-
> > aggression principle (NAP) which says:
> >
> > 'no person may intiate, or do a credible threat to initiate,
> > physical
> > assault upon the body or justly held possessions of
> unconsenting
> > other person'
> >
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > see: 'LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism'
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48456
> >
>
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.
