[Libertarian] Re: Does ALL 'human' life also have 'personhood'

Fri, 26 May 2006 14:23:25 -0700

TLP said:

> 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

Question here: While I understand you "tentative" disclaimer, would
the rights of an individual be removed if, say, they were to enter
into a comatose or semi-comatose state (or any level of the Glasgow
Coma Scale)or even stupor?  Would someone in such a state still be
defined as a 'person' according to your criteria?

I find this a most fascinating discussion that has, for the most
part, remained very civil.  Thanks for moderating.

Bucky

--- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Mark, do you believe that a universal application of consistent
> libertarianism requires a 'person' to reciprocate their respected 
> natural rights by fulfilling their natural obligations; AND which
> human (or even other) lifeforms are capable in this regard? 
>
> Please identify your criteria, and your rationale for said
criteria,
> for recognizing 'personhood' AND the 'traits' of human lifeforms
that
> you believe meet your criteria.  So far, all you've offered that I
> have seen (am half blind remember) is 'post parturition human' sans
> explanation as to what specific traits make for personhood (an
> entity's property of rights/duties capability), AND why. 
>
>
> 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
>
> MoreAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
>
> SeeAlso: LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48521
>
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
> '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
>  
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark Robert" <colowe@> wrote:
> >
> > Terry P,
> >
> > Surely you are not confusing the abortion issue with adult
> > persons able to practice universal libertarianism. Surely you are
> > not saying the only thing with the right to continue/live is a
> > mature libertarian, and that infants do not. Surely you don't
> > think pro-choice includes "aborting" infants.
> >
> > [DISCLAIMER]
> > I know you are not actually taking those positions, but only
> > stimulating thought. So neither do my questions imply that you
> > have. And so here are my thoughts, which I am not actually
> > "arguing" (wink):
> >
> > A fetus does not have the right to continue/live (when exposed to
> > a women's right to abort) because of all the good reasons
> > mentioned here many times: mostly re the lack of basic traits for
> > a relatively full-functioning animal specimen. An infant has that
> > right because it HAS those traits, via transformations of
> > parturition. All other perspectives that question an infant's
> > right to continue/live are answered by the species identity of
> > said infant. If I'm still being lazy or inconsistent, please
> > indicate how with a rewording of your previous comments.
> >
> > -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.] }
> >
> > ----------------------
> >
> >
> > I'm saying for one to ass/u/me (vs making the rational case) that
> > a
> > live normal human infant is an actual (vs de jure 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
> >
>






ForumWebSiteAt  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian



SPONSORED LINKS
Libertarian English language Political parties
Online dictionary American politics

YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS



Reply via email to