From: jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson)
Subject: Re: Rights. Was: Re: Children, Children
Originator: jjohnson@muse.convex.com
Organization: CONVEX Computer Corp. Richardson, TX, USA
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 00:39:18 GMT
X-Disclaimer: This message was written by a user at CONVEX Computer
              Corp. The opinions expressed are those of the user and
              not necessarily those of CONVEX.


In article <1992Apr9.120759.25526@NCoast.ORG>, Chris Morton writes:
>
>As quoted from <1992Apr7.013159.7975@news.eng.convex.com> by
>jjohnson@convex.com (Jennifer L. Johnson): 
>
>> In article <1992Apr3.122228.11776@NCoast.ORG> cmort@ncoast.org, Christopher
>> Morton writes:
>>
>>If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that your rights EXIST, much
>>less are being violated, you don't have any.
>>
>> 
>>I think this question has been asked already, but I've yet to read where
>>you answer it, so let me ask you again:

>I've answered it, and in two networks and at least three newsgroups!

I don't believe you've answered it yet.

I wrote:
>>     Severely brain-damaged children (or brain-deficient, as in the case of 
>>     anancephalic children) are INCAPABLE of knowing that their rights EXIST,
>>     much less of knowing if their rights are being violated, so does this
>>     mean they don't have any rights?

>>     Would it be ethical to use them in medical experiments?

You replied:
>No.

I wrote:
>>     Would it be ethical to drop them head first into boiling water?

You asked:
>To what end?  

To kill them "humanely" in preparation for eating them, of course.
Just like lobsters...

I wrote:
>>If your answer to any of these questions is "No," then why?  Such persons
>>fail to meet the criteria you assert above as necessary for the granting
>>of rights.

Contradicting yourself, you wrote:
>No they don't.  

Yes, they certainly do.  You stated: "If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that
your rights EXIST, much less are being violated, you don't have any."
I gave an example of set of humans who are INCAPABLE of knowing that
their rights exist, much less of knowing that their rights are being
violated.  How can you possibly deny they fail to meet your criteria?
It might be convenient for you to deny they do, but in doing so, you contradict
your own assertion (again).

You wrote:
>As I've said innumerable times here and elsewhere, if you have
>to base you entire case on the gross exception, you don't HAVE a case.  
>SOME
>humans are DEFECTIVE and are incapable of exercising CERTAIN rights.  They are
>still HUMAN and still have the basic rights of a HUMAN.  It is NORMAL for a
>human to understand these HUMAN rights.  It's logically flawed to base your
>ENTIRE case on a DEFECTIVE human, while ignoring that ALL of the CLASS to 
>whom you wish to extend "rights" has the same inability as the EXCEPTIONAL
>human.  That you and others are incapable of seeing this is an indication of
>how far you're willing to stretch to make your case.  It just doesn't work.

If your assertion, "If you are INCAPABLE of knowing that your rights
EXIST, much less are being violated, you don't have any", completely
falls apart because of a single exception, your assertion just isn't true. 
For example, 

  if you say,  "having a mind is what gives an entity rights"
  and i say,   "some people have no mind.  does this mean they have no rights?"
  and you say, "of course they do!"

You've just blown away your own definition of who has rights (again). That you
are incapable of seeing this is an indication of how far you're willing to go 
to avoid admitting that you've lost the argument.

You wrote:
> this is by my estimation, at LEAST the third time
>that I've addressed this issue here.  As near as I can tell, my answers have
>remained the same.  Now if you were looking for a different answer

No, Chris, just a *real* answer.

You wrote:
>>or if you
>>were looking for me to argue from a point of view more easy for you to
>>refute, all I can say is that life is full of little disappointments.... :)

What could be easier than standing back and watching you contradict
yourself again?

I wrote:
>> Please don't skirt this one.

You wrote:
>I don't think you can truthfully accuse me of this now.

Again, you've proved my assertion that, "you often fail to answer
direct questions when your answer to those questions would refute some
previous assertion of yours."  Is it so very hard for you to just admit when
you've lost an argument? 



-- 
Jennifer L. Johnson |   "While we ourselves are the living graves of murdered 
jjohnson@convex.com |    beasts, how can we expect any ideal conditions on 
                    |    this earth?" 		--George Bernard Shaw