BWS
From: uncoolrabbit <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> My question I possed was what is the libertarian stance to take a
> begining point for the descussion while we debate wether or not to
> recognize it. My assumption of rights was never a final assumption
> but a begining point to try and more efectivly reach the fact
> backed truth, and I still believe in that philosophy.
> To clerify the basis for the case - I do this, as a starting point
> for debate, seaking the same factual evidence saught from me.
>
> To answer the question, I believe that as I still lack reasons why
> that person should not be recognized, the libertarian default
> ought be to assume rights untill factual evidence suggests other wise.
> Wether you assume yes or no you must make an assumption to make a
> point, the assumption of course can not be a final point. I make
> it only as a beggining, to start some place. From my assumption that
> it should be considered to have rights untill evidence suggest other
> wise I apply the non aggretion to it.
>
> The fact that the individual has not been recognized to have
> rights does not imply that it does not have those rights. I am certain
> you understand that. I believe the degree of violation of liberty is a
> real concern as well as the application of non agression
> principles.
> The infringement of liberty in carrying a child to term seems to
> pale in comparison to the infrindgment of libertey in terminating
> an individuals life. I conclude this because the later is permanant
> while the former is temporary.
>
> With out evidence suggesting otherwise, I can not default to the
> comfortable prejudice that the woman with recognized rights is any
> more valuable than the individual with uncertain unrecognized
> rights. This is why I do not feel past atrocities are true red
> herings, the victims were not recognized as having rights, and
> were dehuminized in varying ways but always dehumanized. Had humans of
> the past aproached those senario's assuming rights untill factual
> evidence suggested other wise would we of had as many rights
> violations in our past?
>
> A part of human nature is to accept the norm as just that, the
> norm. I interpret this is one of the sources for the idea of unlearning,
> to become that libertarian society we must remove those learned
> reactions, those comfortable prejudices. This is an ever
> continueing process for both individuals and humanity as a whole. I don't find
> the question "Why is an african american adult more valuable than
> a 2 month fetus?" obsurd because we are discussing the recognition
> of that fetus as a person or not and in one real point in history
> African Americans were not recognized as full persons but this is
> now widley accepted as wrong while at the time it was a norm.
>
> I am very open to change, but I can't do so with out reason, real
> solid reason and I don't feel I have had sufficient reason to move
> from assuming rights to determing there are no rights inherent to
> be recognized. (This is long, so for reminder this statement does not
> advocate legislation banning abortion, I don't advocate that and
> its not why I am here posting.)
>
> Untill reason leads me to believe otherwise I can not by default
> assume the womans recognized rights are more valuable on all
> levels than the potential unrecognized rights of the fetus. It goes
> against my personal philosophy, and I honestly believe it is contrary to
> libertarian philosophy. So from the stance that niether parties
> rights are more valuable inately I apply non agression.
>
> I feel this even proides room for special cases, such as rape
> where the woman no longer has responsibility and in this scenario I can
> not, and do not desire to provide any strong resistance to freedom
> of choice as now both parties are victims assumed to be of equal
> value. The fetus would still be an inocent victim of agression but
> the stance is no longer troubled by the dilema of acountability.
>
> The woman in the non special case scenario is not only the
> agressor, but the agression is also a response to a desire to avoid the
> consequences of freely undertaken actions on her part. This fact,
> for me, adds to the previous justifications of aplication of non
> agression and of the degree of infrindgement on liberty.
>
> Thanks for giving me the chance to be heard.
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.
