Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sun, 12 Nov 2000 12:49:48 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
621 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John DiRienzo writes:
> Chirs, there are tons of people who don't agree with or understand
> "rights-based calculus" but we don't exclude them from their rights.
>
> > conception).) Some people suggest that the rights-based calculus can't
> > begin until that "click" since rights don't apply to something that
> > can't understand the very concept.
There are tons of sentients (not people) who are excluded from the possesion of
rights. When this is justified, the arguments are typically based on the fact
that they're dumber than us, religious dictate, or something seemingly
undefinable which I happen to believe is actually one or both of the first
options.
If these other creatures can be excluded from their rights, why not fetuses?
Chris
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3wwz0.M4v@lugnet.com... (...) possesion of (...) fact (...) fetuses? (...) Who's to say plants aren't sentient? (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| Chirs, there are tons of people who don't agree with or understand "rights-based calculus" but we don't exclude them from their rights. "Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3v0Fx.GMC@lugnet.com... (...) begin (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
