has the right of a person to live?
It's intellectually and spiritually lazy
to default to a comfortable prejudice
shared by one's associates!
The term 'personhood' refers to the 'property'
of being able to have rights & duties (obligations).
Adult human beings are human lifeforms with apparent
'personhood' for example.
Historically, we've been too quick to discount
personhood when doing so was immoral;
for example, slavery (person discounted to
another person's property) Determination
of 'personhood' impacts not only the
contemporary human abortion issue but also
the morality of other life form encounters to come.
The intellectual & spiritual 'homework'
yet to be done by many, is to develop
a working criteria for who (or what)
gets to be considered a person AND why.
If you want that criteria to be
generally acknowledged it has to be
as rational and objective as possible.
MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
-Terry Liberty Parker
LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
--- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> To ass/u/me that they are not persons as apposed to making a
logical
> case as to why not is no less lazy. While both are
> counterproductive, only one is completly contrary. Liberty is a
> right, and thus the advocacy of libertey goes hand and hand with
the
> advocacy of rights. A libertarian is most comenly defined in texts
> as an advocate of liberty.
>
> While no more or less counterproductive, it is definatly more
> contrary to set the default to no rights as apossed to set the
> default to rights and work forward from the assumption of rights
> seeking the logical explanation why those rights should not be
> granted.
>
> While there is no urgency as we do not sit in a position to revoke
> or protect those rights as result of any decisions on this forumn,
> the fact that we do live in reality should not be totaly forgoten
> when discussion political philosophy as apposed to some pure
> phihlophy in the search of absolute truth.
>
> While we argue for the ultimate truth, is it not more Libertarian
to
> first protect rights and seek the justification to deny them (such
> as a determination that the individual is entitled to recieve
rights
> or be deemed a 'person') rather than to first deny these rights
then
> demand the justification for there acknowledgement?
>
> --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <txliberty@>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm saying for one to ass/u/me (vs making the rational case) that
> a
> > live normal human infant is an actual (vs dejure like
corporations
> > for another example) person (entity able to have rights and
> > obligations) is spiritually and intellectually lazy, AND
> > counterproductive to sincere exploration of the universality of
> > libertarianism.
> >
> > Please read AND ponder what I wrote in-
> > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
> >
> >
> > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
> > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], "mark Robert" <colowe@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Terry P,
> > >
> > > As anything and everything will be analyzed on the internet,
> > > allow me to analyze your "non-position" positioning / "non-
argue"
> > > arguing. OOH, I can see the wisdom in such posting behavior.
> > > OTOH, it's philosophically convenient, somewhat ill aligned with
> > > "principles", and a little tricky (unfair?) for others.
> > >
> > > Let me explain the latter with a typical sequence profile. You
> > > (or Tom) rebuts / challenges / confronts another's posted point,
> > > appearing exactly like an argument / position. But when your
> > > rebuttal is refuted by another's post (to an effective-enough
> > > degree), your default response is to claim you are/were not
> > > arguing the point/position. Such non-commitment allows you the
> > > convenience to argue everything without fear of ever being
> > > incorrect, akin to those who criticize everything with no
> > > suggestion as to a solution or alternative - in other words: a
> > > fancy way to say "although I don't know the answer, I am going
to
> > > tell you when you are wrong." Obviously you have the right to
> > > this posting behavior, but I just thought I would register my
> > > slight complaint against it.
> > >
> > > Now allow me to segway that into the meatier part (and imply
that
> > > you are implying a position):
> > > Am I to assume that your challenge to me to find how and why
> > > universal libertarianism regards infants as persons is a passive
> > > way of suggesting that it doesn't?
> > >
> > > -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.] }
> > >
> > > ---------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Mark, I have NOT taken a cemented in position; I'm raising
> > > questions
> > > which need more than automatic presumptions as answers:
> > >
> > > Personhood- At what point do rights and obligations accrue to a
> > > developing human individual?
> > >
> > > The spectrum of opinion is from the moment of conception
> > > (spiritual,
> > > before physical zygote) their physical gestation to birth and a
> > > few
> > > years beyond (human infanticide is actually NOT regarded as
> > > murder in
> > > some societies)
> > >
> > > More At http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
> > >
> > >
> > > *IF* you're taking the position that infanticide is also murder
> > > (unjustifiable homicide) then present a rational case. Many
> > > ass/u/me
> > > that normal human infants are actual persons (not just declared
> > > as
> > > such by the US Constitution).
> > >
> > > How and why is regarding infants as persons justified by a
> > > universal
> > > application of libertarianism?
> > >
> > >
> > > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > > LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
> > > at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "mark Robert" <colowe@>
> > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > TLP,
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I've read your criteria before. But I have to confess,
I'm
> > > > having trouble comprehending your/its position on infants,
> > > > especially considering your other comments on infanticide.
> > > Maybe
> > > > you could explain a little further?
> > > >
> > > > -Mark
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
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.
