Ed, What country are you from? The right to own stuff is NOT based on government recognition. It's called "property rights" and is NOT dependant on government in any way. The government is only there to protect the right from being violated.
Having a unique identity is at the core of individual self-ownership, which is the basis of all rights. And in contrast to what you claim, individual identity is all about "inherent characteristics". If you don't think a newborn can make choices, then you must be childfree. Any mother or father can tell you that an infant can immediately express likes and dislikes. If I attempted to explain my positions and you responded to them, but then claimed I did not make attempts, then you have lied (AND initiated the inflammatory language). Your responses to my attempts prove you had knowledge of them, and that your claim was an intentional misstatement of fact. My definition of the act as "lie" was surely not the offense. And since you continue the claim, you merely turn "lie" into "lies". We agree that rights are inherent, no matter who else thinks who or what might endow them. But the concept of inherent rights does not disagree in any way with my position. "Inherent rights" are still specific to a certain thing; and in order to define them, one must define what has them. In contrast to what you claim, it takes more than merely "being human" to have rights. I have given plenty of support as to why the standard HAS to be stricter. You are being ridiculous. A baseless rejection like "I don't accept the statement" is not a "reply to a point". You claim "one's physical location or dependancy is irrelevant to having rights" and again ask me to show "WHY one's physical location endows rights". Again, but I'll try to reword: The physical predicament of the fetus (being inside another's body) does not allow for any of the fundamental basics of rights to exist. Choices can not be made, or desires expressed, or things owned, or identities recognized, etc. Essentially rights can not be exercised, observed, applied, respected, reciprocated, etc. Name any right that could possibly be applied to, or utilized by, a fetus? Can it have the right to free speech, to free assembly, to vote, to petition government, to serve on a militia, to keep and bear arms, to consent, to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures, to due process, to a speedy trial by jury, etc? After all, what is the definition of "individual civil rights" beyond the things that define the rights and the things that define the individual? "Anything human" certainly does NOT define "individual person" in terms of "civil rights". Why? Because if it did, you would not be allowed to cut your fingernails or have a tumor removed. You accused me of making a false dichotomy but I didn't see where you pointed it out. I see no such fallacy in my points. Cells and twins were only two of many examples I could have given to refute your argument. Are you sure you know what a "false dichotomy" is? Look, YOU were the one who tried to argue that "genetic structure" makes a fetus a person with rights. Twins was only one example that refutes it. The "genetic structure" of cancer cells (having unique DNA) also refutes it. And you calling my effective rebuttals "silly" doesn't change anything. First, you implied that my position characterized birth as "magic". Then, I explained how that was untrue and how it is a very simple concept, based on very simple mechanics and physics and biology. Now you argue that "it isn't simple". What exactly are you currently arguing?? "It's not magic, but it's not simple"? Where's the point? If by "one" you meant "you and I", then my dispute was valid; and obviously I was not merely "trying to be clever" - "you and I" are obviously NOT fetuses. Therefore, your statement is proven to be another example of circular reasoning. Well if we are to know who has what rights, you HAVE to state how the situation came to be. Maybe there was a consensual agreement between the rope-holders, or maybe the one is actually trying to murder the other. An attacker certainly does not have the right to be held by his victim. But who knows the real situation? You didn't say. You wrote: "the location of a person has nothing to do with him having rights. Unless, of course, you believe that rights are not inherent in human beings but depend on external factors. If you believe that, we have nothing further to discuss on this point." Rights are inherent in "us" as "human beings". But while WE are persons AND human beings, ALL "human beings" are NOT persons. A concise definition of the term is essential to this debate, yet your circular assertions imply an abuse of the definition to include fetuses - and you continue to use such terms rather arbitrarily as more appealing to emotion. Yes rights are inherent in the rope-holders, but an attacker does not have a right to be suspended by his victim (re the part you left out - how the situation came to be). Beyond that, you have lost me with your rope-holder analogy (never quite got it to begin with). Not only are you splitting hairs with your "Occam's Razor" argument, but you don't appear to understand the term. Or maybe you just don't understand that the concept of birth is no more complex than the concept of conception. I could ask you just as many questions about the point of conception (I believe that is the POINT where you claim rights begin), and they would be just as good or better. IOW I could make the argument that YOUR POINT is the much less specific one - and therefore much less likely. Your dishonest part was "I...have heard nothing to seriously dispute it". And my comment was no insult; since it has been established that you have lied (you could not possibly have replied to numerous attempts without knowing I made them, and then claim there was no attempt - and remain honest/credible). -------------------------------- --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed you wrote: > > I do not accept your "conditions necessary for personhood." > > -------------- > Yes, I know. But it would be nice if you explained better. How it > is possible for a fetus (which does not have these conditions) to > have personhood; ie, how can it own anything or be identified or > make choices? > -------------- $ You identify "personhood" as being able to satisfy three conditions: owning something, having an identity, and making choices. First of all, if by "personhood" you mean being an individual human with rights, I do not accept those conditions. For the sake of argument, however, let's look at them. Ownership of something basically only has meaning in the context of a government. So, the state recognizes ownership and, by implication, recognizes "personhood". Then the source of "personhood" is the state not one's inherent charactersitics as a human. I don't accept that. "Identification" is done by someone else (your words, "be identified"). Again, this depends on someone else, not one's inherent characteristics as a human. Again, I don't accept that. Finally, you talk of "making choices." A newly born infant can no more "make choices" than one in the womb. Therefore, a newly born infant does not have "personhood" and has no rights. I don't accept that. > > You have made no attempt to support your position. Stating a > position is not proving it. > > --------------- > Please stop lying. I have made lengthy and detailed attempts to > explain and support my position. > ---------------------- $ I really wish you would stop using inflammatory language. Supporting your position means giving some support for your statements. It means giving some evidence and logical support. You have given no support for your statement that separateness is required for being an individual with rights. You have just stated it over and over. Further, you have not responded when I presented some evidence that an infant in the womb is separate. You may consider your attempts to be lengthy and detailed. I don't. > > Rights are inherent in a human being by the fact of being a human > being. > > ---------------------- > PERFECTLY circular. > ---------------------- $ Making a comment on a sentence separately from the supporting paragraph not reasonable. You may think it clever. It isn't. > > That is the essence of "certain inalienable rights" being > "endowed by the Creator." > > --------------------- > We aren't discussing who or what (if anything other than US) > endowed individual rights. We are discussing what does and does > not have those rights. For example: no matter what god or man > endowed them, cows do not have them. > -------------------- $ Neither was I. I was just using standard terminology. If you believe in a creator, the words make sense. If you don't, they just mean that rights are inherent and not endowed. I think we all agree that government does not endow basic rights. You have them because you are human. No one gives them. No one can take them away. Note that I refer here to BASIC rights. I prefer to call some "rights" like the right to vote, as a privilege to separate them from basic rights like one's right to life. > > Separateness is not what makes one human. > > -------------------- > Please be more specific. By "human", I assume you mean > "individual person with rights". $ Sort of. If you are human, you are an individual and you have rights. > > But in order to maintain this position you can not reply to my > points about how being inside another body makes rights > impossible. > ------------------- $ I did reply. I don't accept the statement. One's physical location or dependancy is irrelevant to having rights. It is up to YOU to show WHY one's physical location endows rights. > > I claim that one is human because of one's genetic structure. > Since a child has the same genetic structure from the moment of > conception until death, a child is human from conception until > then. > > ------------------ > But in order to maintain that position, you can not reply to my > points about how genetics would include anything human, like > single cells. Or if your claim is that the standard for > personhood is having a UNIQUE genetic structure, then you > discount one of every set of twins. > ------------------ $ An interesting point but, in reality, a false dichotomy. Human beings are a collection of cells, all having the same basic genetic structure. It is really kind of silly to talk about each individual cell separately. One can get all wound up in this kind of question but it is pointless. We all know what we are talking about. > > There is no magic moment when one becomes human by passing > through the birth canal. > > ------------------ > I have never implied that there is any MAGIC to it. I have > explained how it is a very simple concept, based on very simple > mechanics and physics and biology. > ----------------- $ The mechanics, physics, and biology are anything but simple. You keep trying to make it simple. It isn't. > > One is always human and, therefore, one always has rights. > > ---------------- > "One" what? One DOG, CAT, RAT, DOLPHIN, CHIMPANZEE? Surely you > can see that without specifics and support, it just another > hollow/circular statement. > ---------------- $ In this context, "one" refers to "oneself". I could also have said "you and I". Hopefully, you understood that and you're just trying to be "clever". > > Your analysis of my position is wrong. I don't know where you got > it but it is not in what I said. Perhaps I can illustrate by an > analogy. > > Consider this situation. Mary finds herself on a ledge some 90 > feet up a cliff. She is holding a rope. Ed is on the other end of > the rope dangling over the cliff. (Let us ignore how this came to > be for the sake of simplicity.) Mary does not have the strength > to pull Ed up but can only lower him down. In the process Mary > could be pulled over the cliff to her death. She could also be > injured. > > Mary has rights. Ed has rights. Ed is not merely a lump of > protoplasm because he is dependent on Mary and attached to her. I > claim it is morally correct for Mary to risk herself to lower Ed > safely to the ground. Indeed, it is the admirable thing to do. > But there is a conflict of rights, Ed's and Mary's. > > ------------------- > Wow, what a horrible analogy. First of all, for it to make any > sense you HAVE to state how their situation came to be. Second, > both are obviously separate individuals; so of course they both > have rights. Again: the element that makes a fetus without rights > is not its umbilical cord or its dependency; it is its location. > ------------------ $ Guess you don't like the analogy. I don't HAVE to state how the situation came to be. In fact, how the situation came to be has nothing to do with either person having rights. Also, the location of a person has nothing to do with him having rights. Unless, of course, you believe that rights are not inherent in human beings but depend on external factors. If you believe that, we have nothing further to discuss on this point. > > I claim that the state should not REQUIRE her to risk herself to > save Ed. By analogy, the state should not REQUIRE a mother to > risk herself to save her child. > > ----------------- > While I agree with the latter, the answer to the first would > depend on how the situation came to be. > ----------------- $ No, it would not. Rights are inherent. The resolution of a conflict of rights may depend on the situation but the presence of rights does not. > > Claiming that a child before birth is merely a lump of protoplasm > with no humanity and no rights may be convenient but it just > doesn't hold water. > > ---------------- > There's no need to continue to use strawman-like phrases like > "lump of protoplasm" to try to discredit my argument. > --------------- $ Hmm. Thought you used it first. Evidently not. > > It fails the test of Occam's razor. > > --------------- > Explain. > -------------- $ Occam's razor is a logical method to eliminate multiple choices. In this case, you claim that one must be "separate" to have rights. When does this happen? When the cord is cut? When completely out of the birth canal? Partially out? When the placenta separates from the wall of the uterus? If you can't specify the point, you fail the test of Occam's razor. > > You may disagree. You probably do. > > --------------- > Correct. > --------------- > > I'm satisfied, though, with my reasoning and have heard nothing > to seriously dispute it. > > --------------- > Please... you're not being honest again. > --------------- > $ How the heck do YOU know if I'm satisfied or not? How do YOU know whether I have heard anything to seriously dispute it? Implying I'm lying is insulting. ------------------------------------
