We don't seem to be able to communicate meaningfully. It seems we are stuck in a "Conflict Of Visions" (Tom Sowell). Further discussion is probably meaningless. It certainly is not worth the time to me. I've inserted a few answers to some direct questions and comments but I will make no further attempt to explain myself.
Ed$ --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonb...@...> wrote: > > Ed, > > What country are you from? The United States of America. 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. 7 younger brothers and sisters, 5 children, 6 grandchildren, lots of interaction with very young children especially lately. > > 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". It was not meant to be. > > 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? To life. 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? Yes. > 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). I will not continue a discussion with someone who calls me a liar. > > -------------------------------- > > > > --- In [email protected], "ma ni" <statonberg@> > 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. > > > > > ------------------------------------ >
