Akin's Idiotic Remark Obscures the Libertarian Point He Made Right After It


Suverans2's picture

Speaking of "idiotic remarks", anyone pick up on this? "Rather it turns on as yet unsettled questions regarding when and how a human being becomes a "person" with "rights."

Anyone here know the answer to this most unusual question? When and how does a human being become a "person"? [Keep in mind that the question was not, when does an embryo become an "human being" with "rights"?]

    Scope and delineation of term [person] is necessary for determining those to whom Fourteenth Amendment of Constitution affords protection since the Amendment expressly applies to "person". ~ Excerpted from Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), definition of the word "Person", page 1142 [Bracketed information and emphasis added]

Why did the authors of Black's feel the adverb "expressly" was necessary in that portion of the above definition of the word "Person"? So, when and how does a human being become a "person" with "rights"? And, what kind of "rights" does he have...as a "person"? Are they the same "rights" that he has...as an human being? [Yes, yes, I know, some of you have no "just claim", i.e. right, to anything. Please, feel free to excuse yourself from answering these mundane questions. ;)]

tomcat's picture

The confusion about the terms of -Human Beeing- and -Person- is most likely a result
of the religious Belief that one doesnt need a physical Existence to "be".
A new "immortal Soul" is created in the Moment of impregnation, so once you destroy
a single Zygote you commit Murder.
The real Question should be if our Evaluation of Right and Wrong should be based
on religious Superstition or on scientific Knowledge.Especially if we consider the Outcome of this
Evaluation to be mandatory not only for ourselves but for others too.
Religion has in any case the Advantage to give simple and straightforward Answers to the
most difficult Questions and complex Problems.

Suverans2's picture

Buz-z-z-z-z-z-z! Incorrect! ;)

A person, in legalese, (an artificial[1] language), is an artificial being, "devised by human laws for the purposes of society and government[2]", (another artificial entity), while an human is a natural being, which explains the reason for following Maxim of Law.

    Homo vocabulum est naturae; persona juris civilis. Man (homo) is a term of nature; person (persona) of civil law. ~ Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition (c.1990), page 736

This is why their 'laws' read, "All persons shall..." and not "All men shall..." It has nothing whatsoever to do with gender! They have no jurisdiction over men who do not, (knowingly or ignorantly), stand surety for a "person (persona)" created by them. They are actually directing the "person (persona)" but you, (rhetorically speaking), jump through the hoop believing that "person (persona)" is you.

    "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around. What do you see? Business men, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system, and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it." ~ Morpheus


[1] Artificial, created by artifice, which is, in this case, "human laws".

[2] Also note that these bastards know "society and government" are two entirely different things.

Glock27's picture

Greetings tomcat,

A few books by Hannah Arendt that might be helpful "The origins of Totaliarainism" "The Life of the Mind" and "The Human Condition"

Glock27's picture

I consider abortion a poor excuse for shoddy behavior. For me, I view the uniting of a sperm with an ova to be the initiating point of human life and that of a human being. I strongly disagree with abortion because the end result will be a human being, not a chimpanzie, or a mushroom and at that inception is also the inception of the evolving child. I conceed there are certain cases a woman should determine if the child should be eliminated and incest, rape, mothers life are some.

All creatures upon this planet bear out their young and do not obtain abortion. If it comes it is via natural selection--a fact which also occurs with human creatures. The woman, if she is willing to gamble on not getting pregnant but does, should not be allowed the right to abort the human child. Her pregnancy is a result of stupidity and using abortion as a preventative is not an available choice, a right she forfits because she and he knows better.

So many want to talk about natural right and natural law. I believe that the part "natural" is overlooked, in that a woman becomes naturally pregnant. Where in natural law does it say she has a natural right to abort the child (property?) I don't think so because one cannot give away their natural rights without having first negotiated such abdicationn. I think you referred me to an author who speaks to these elements and reading his words kind of convinces me of this position. Am I misinterpreting him? Maybe. Maybe not.

There are so many options the woman and man can use to control pregnancy. To be lazy and foregoe the options says to me you forgo the right to abort the human being. If it were a chimpanze or a mushroom, please feel free to abort it. If you don't want the child then give the child to a couple desireing a child. This makes far more common sense that simply aborting a child because of being stupid about ones moral and ethical obligation to the natural rights and laws.

I anxiously await your or anyone elses reply. Please send me a message.


tomcat's picture

What makes higher Forms of Life (that of Humans and maybe that of some other Species, including chimpanzies) so special is Self-awareness.
From a scientific Point of view, to be alive and self-aware you will need adequate
biological structures as "underlying Hardware".Dont know where to draw the exact line,
but a single cell, a bunch of cells or a thumb-sized Embryo wont do it.
With lesser or no requirements as far as the Self-awareness is concerned, this basically
true for all Forms of Life.To be alive, even as a mushroom, you need functional biological

You are free to believe whatever you want and you should be free to bear the
consequences of your faith.

For your own person.

But should Ideas solely made up by some religious Belief become the Foundation
of Laws legally binding for all People ?

NO !!

Glock27's picture

How about just pure old fashioned common sense and not mumbo jumbo. One mans perspective becomes a cornfield of rage for another. Having taught special education for 35 years I have known many human beings with absolutely no self-awarness that could be detected. They are neither Chimpanze nor mushroom. One student which I hopelessly worked with (because it was required of me by legislative law) had no brain, only the primitive cerebellum which controls heart, breathing and etc. Her cerebral cortex was withered into a small lump floating around on a string in the cerebral fluid, absolutely functionalless; then there are half brained individuals whom get along fairly well also. So. From my perspective, self-awarness does not constitute a parameter of humaness. Go figure. Brainlless human being and still a human being.

I still contend that once the sperm hits the egg and begins its myotic process (the evolvement of a human being) that it is a human being. I wish people would stop using excuses for their behavior and take responsibility for their poor choices. Two wrongs just don't make a right do it? (Somewhere it was mentioned that kill the ova and you commit murder. How many murders happen when young guys and old fellows jack-off and squirt on the ground or where-ever. By such reasoning one teenage boy is worse than Hitler and a pile of other tyrants).

!!!By the way. This has nothing to do with religion. Where you garnered that idea I haven't the foggeiest idea; so lets keep religion completely out of this and stay with the Natural Order of things, it's a bit safer!!!

What is such an enigma to me is how so many people are passionate about denegrating the human being. When a woman gets pregnant they want to look at it like its a tumor to be gotten rid of. Pregnancy is the natural result of unprotected sex. (Yes or No?). What do you think is going to happen when a male and female copulate? Now, if pregnancy is the result of a natural act should it not follow that the natural result is going to be a human being and not a chimpanze or mushroom. If it is natural then that evolving fetus has natural rights whether it is conscious or not. When does self-awarness begin with a child? The moment it is born, or is it self-aware in the womb, or is it an hour after it is born? Self-consciousness has nothing to do with humaness--I pointed that out with the brainless child above.

It is my opinion that a bit more probing into what human is as opposed to chimpanze or mushroom.

Scribbleddeplatz fizzen drupe quizzel snitz!!

Give me honest proof that the egg and sperm once united (or not) can be identified as human or not. If it is not, what is it, and don't say tissue because that too is human. not chimpanze or mushroom. Criminal forensics can tell that difference. If they can we should also.

I urge anyone else who sees this to send me a message and demonstrate where my thinking and logic is faulty. Jim! Where are you when I need you?