Skip to comments.
Retired Cop Waves White Flag in War on Drugs
The Standard-Times (MA) ^
| 15 Jan 2003
| John Doherty
Posted on 01/16/2003 7:43:37 AM PST by MrLeRoy
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-348 last
To: Mark Bahner
if those bodies, or parts of bodies, have no right to life, why does a collection of cells that ALSO has no brain, have a "right to life?" Because it has the potential to have a reasoning free-willed brain.
341
posted on
02/05/2003 3:25:10 PM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: Mark Bahner
... as I already explained at length in post #308.
342
posted on
02/05/2003 3:28:30 PM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: MrLeRoy
To: Mark Bahner
does an anencephalitic fetus have a "right to life?" No.
344
posted on
02/05/2003 3:38:25 PM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: MrLeRoy
I wrote, "Does an anencephalitic fetus have a "right to life?"
Mr. LeRoy responded, "No."
Hmmmm. This is presumably because there is no "potential for reasoning free-willed individuality."
But why have the government involved in protecting a group of cells that merely have the "potential" to form a brain? Why not only get the government involved when a brain truly exists?
To: Mark Bahner
Explained at length in post #308.
346
posted on
02/06/2003 5:38:32 AM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
To: MrLeRoy
"Explained at length in post #308."
One paragraph...filled with logical inconsistencies.
You say only humans have the "potential" for "reasoning free-willed individuality."
And you later agreed that anencephalic fetuses have no right to be born. (Presumably because they have no potential for "reasoning free-willed individuality.")
But there are PLENTY of animals (chimps, parakeets, dogs, dolphins) that are far more "reasoning free-willed individuals," than various human beings who have extremely damaged brains.
So your criteria for what deserves the "right to life" is essentially "whatever Mr. LeRoy says."
In contrast, *my* suggested guidelines are far more consistent (although they are "specie-ist"):
1) Nothing without any brain has a right to life,
2) Entities that have a human brain, no matter how poorly functioning, have a right to life. HOWEVER,
3) Those entities also have a "right to die." And,
4) If those entities are in another entity's body, the host entity also has rights. (Including the right to abort the entity, if that entity was conceived through involuntary sexual intercourse.) Finally,
5) In most cases, the woman who is the host entity is likely to be the best judge of what is best for the entity inside her.
Summary: I still don't see the point in having the government involved in protecting something that has the POTENTIAL to have a brain. When that something actually HAS a brain, then I can at least see the potential wisdom of having the government involved.
To: Mark Bahner
filled with logical inconsistencies. False.
But there are PLENTY of animals (chimps, parakeets, dogs, dolphins) that are far more "reasoning free-willed individuals," than various human beings who have extremely damaged brains.
They are neither reasoning free-willed individuals nor members of species for which that state is the norm. No inconsistency there.
348
posted on
02/06/2003 12:54:30 PM PST
by
MrLeRoy
("That government is best which governs least.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 281-300, 301-320, 321-340, 341-348 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson