Your irrational comments on the discussion are fairly
representative of your points on the issue. You make no less than
five comments against continuing the discussion, and say you will
not continue further, yet proceed to continue. You claim that WE
aren't communicating meaningfully, yet the truth is that you
can't support your argument. You claim the discussion is "stuck",
when in reality it's only your position.
These false appearances are the first hints of a less-valid
position. IOW the main reason you can't defend your position is
because it is less-defensible by its very nature.
Your first three interjections add nothing to your points. While
your fourth doesn't either, I think it deserves a reply. You
claim the right to life can be applied to, or utilized by, a
fetus. How? Can it be exercised, observed, applied, respected, or
reciprocated? If so, how? For example: How do you even know the
fetus wants to live? It can not even make a choice.
While your last two interjections add nothing, your last one is a
blatant strawman. I did not call you a "liar". I only pointed out
your misstatements and showed how they could not have been
anything less than intentional ("lies"). So your fifth reason for
saying you won't continue is also false.
--------------------------------
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.
