Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 09:22:04 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
711 times
|
| |
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message
news:G3wwz0.M4v@lugnet.com...
> 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
Who's to say plants aren't sentient?
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) 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 (...) (24 years ago, 12-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
|
|
|
|
