I don't think I believe that the criteria for personhood
regarding consistent universal libertarianism need be met by an
infant in order for him/her to be (regarded as) person-enough to
(have the right to) live. I think if I did, I would be confusing
two different sets of criteria (for two different issues). Your
request for me to identify criteria for full personhood implies
the same criteria for infants. Under your criteria, infants are
obviously not full persons, able to apply consistent universal
libertarianism (they can't even say it yet, let alone comprehend
or apply it). But not being a full mature consistent libertarian
who comprehends universal application does not mean you do not
have the right to survive. If you imply that it does, you imply
that infants have no more right to survive than zygotes. This
might be ad populum, but I don't think I've heard of anyone
implying pro-choice on terminating infants.
I agree with your criteria for said mature personhood, but I do
not think they apply to the abortion issue. My criteria for
recognizing survival rights of are:
1. Identification as MY species (Homo sapiens);
2. Physical evacuation from the body of (internal organ of) the
mother;
3. Relative full-functioning of the body -
a. lungs,
b. alimentary tract,
c. liver,
d. kidneys / urinary tract,
e. vocal chords,
f. eyes?,
g. other initiations of systems and organs needed for independent
function and mobilization.
My reasons for those criteria are:
One is simply a manifestation of the relatively universal
species-survival instinct ("natural law"?): species generally
protect and support their own individual members at the
expense/exclusion of all other species. Two and three generally
define an animal specimen (items enabling independent and
spontaneous movement and response to stimulus) and distinguish it
from non-animal.
-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, 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.
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.
