> anyone. Making a Constitutional amendment protecting the right to
> unrestricted abortions without any permission or notification of
> anyone would not interfere or meddle in the lives of anyone. It would
> be a legitimate and libertarian use of the government to defend the
> RIGHT to have an abortion. Government is here to defend the
> rights we are BORN with, and these rights including having abortions and having
> SOLE DOMINION over our own bodies and all organisms within those
> bodies without any oversight by the government, or permission or
> notification of anyone.
>
> To make a firm, clear, and unwavering stand in favor of completely
> unrestricted abortion would be a huge philosophical victory for
> libertarians, and for human rights. Nobody would be prevented from
> being wronged, because abortion doesn't wrong anyone.
It may be a philosophical victory, but saying it that way would loose us votes. It would be confrontational and piss everybody off. The exact same thing could be stated as a simple statement that government has no place in promoting or discouraging a woman from exercising her right to choose her own reproductive path. Or something to that effect and said in a lot less confrontational way.
This points up a problem in our movement. As libertarians we must be cognizant of the way we say things. The exact same thing said in a better way can actually win us votes and support.
BWS
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
- Visit your group "Libertarian" on the web.
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
