until natural death. I recognize that you advocate libertarian
principles from birth until natural death. Since you have not
had time to read all of the contents of www.l4l.org unless you
are a remarkably fast speed reader, I will not continue the debate
at this time.
For life and liberty, inseparably,
David Macko
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 8:24 PM
Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
> Doris Gordon's advocacy and that site are completely worthless and prove
> nothing.
>
> We own our bodies and the organisms within those bodies. Whether
> your opinion is that a fetus is a human being or not is irrelevant.
> If you disagree, you are saying we don't own our body or the organisms
> within it. You are saying we don't have sole dominion.
>
> You are saying you are not advocating libertarianism.
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> See www.l4l.org
>> Take as many hours as you need to read
>> all of it. Since my time is valuable, I do not
>> intend to spend more of it on this subject with
>> anyone who has not done so.
>>
>> For life and liberty,
>> David Macko
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> To: <[email protected]>
>> Sent: Saturday, May 13, 2006 7:58 PM
>> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
>>
>>
>> > To claim someone else's opinion matters is to say that we do not own
>> > our own bodies or the organisms within our own body. Do deny that we
>> > have sole dominion over our own body and the organisms within it? You
>> > obviously are trying to attribute human life onto an organism that
>> > doesn't have it. And eveyr single time you compare abortion to the
>> > holocaust or racism, you're only making your own argument look more
>> > and more stupid and pointless. There is no parallel whatsoever.
>> >
>> > You failed to address the fact that a fetus has no human life. You
>> > claim it does, but that is merely YOUR opinion which is worthless.
>> > The only opinion that matters from a LIBERTARIAN perspective is
> that of
>> > the pregnant woman.
>> >
>> > You have NOTHING to back your point of view, while mine is 100%
>> > compatable with libertarian philosophy.
>> >
>> > So I say, "a brick has no human life", and you say, "the germans
>> > thought the jews had no human life". I say "We own ourselves and
>> > nobody else's opinion matters when it comes to our own body or the
>> > organisms within that body" you reply with "The Nazis thought their
>> > opinion was the only one that matters". Nothing you've said refutes
>> > anything I've said. If I say, "a dog has no human life", you'll say
>> > "the KKK doesn't think black people are human". What does that have
>> > to do with the conversation?
>> >
>> > So the question is clear. It's a yes or no question. If you're
>> > intellectually honest, you won't answer it with anything other than a
>> > yes or no.
>> >
>> > Do you believe that we have sole dominion over our own body and the
>> > organisms within that body?
>> >
>> > Yes or No?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> And no ones opinions matter Accept the PURE germans, and no ones
>> >> opinions matter accept the superior WHITES. Your a perfect paralel
>> >> Paul. I am not here to discuss what your not willing to discuss.
>> >> Rather, what place the discussion should have and why.
>> >>
>> >> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > Yes, everyone has an opinion and none of the opinions matter but
>> >> the
>> >> > pregnant woman. Not yours, not mine, and not the American
>> >> people's.
>> >> > No position other than full support for the right of women to have
>> >> an
>> >> > abortion at any state of pregnancy from conception to birth is a
>> >> > libertarian one. No claims that a fetus has human rights have any
>> >> > more merit than claiming a tapeworm or a tumor has human rights.
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit" <uncoolrabbit@>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > > Opinions are worthless Paul, every one has atleast a few. You
>> >> gave
>> >> > > me your opinion, legislation written on opinion rather than
>> >> factual
>> >> > > logic is no diferent than the conservative right's imposition of
>> >> > > morale laws, or the lefts imposiiton of rob from the rich steal
>> >> from
>> >> > > the poor and is in every way shape and form the tool of a
>> >> statist.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > In the case of abortion, there is no aggression directed at a
>> >> > > child.
>> >> > > > There is no child to aggress against. A fetus is alive in the
>> >> same
>> >> > > > way a tumor is alive. Both have human dna cells. Both have
>> >> the
>> >> > > same
>> >> > > > amount of human life....NONE.
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > >
>> >> > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
>> >> <uncoolrabbit@>
>> >> > > > wrote:
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The other day I remembered why I was drawn to
>> >> Libertarianism. A
>> >> > > > > friend, who is republican, said that there needs to be a
>> >> dress
>> >> > > code
>> >> > > > > in schools. (He is a teacher). I asked why, he said the
>> >> other
>> >> > > day a
>> >> > > > > kid came in wearing a shirt that said 'buck fuddy'. I asked
>> >> him
>> >> > > > > what that means, and he went on a tiraid of cliches rather
>> >> than
>> >> > > > > explaining why he felt that there should be a dress code,
>> >> and
>> >> > > asked
>> >> > > > > me why I 'took the kids side.' I said I haven't taken a
>> >> side,
>> >> > > but
>> >> > > > > the default should always be that people have there own
>> >> personal
>> >> > > > > freedoms.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > There is alot of room in Libertarianism for logic, a person
>> >> can
>> >> > > do
>> >> > > > > anything that does not hurt anouther. I believe a real
>> >> > > philosophical
>> >> > > > > victory would come from adhering to a policy on defending
>> >> > > liberty
>> >> > > > > within the confines of not injuring others. There is alot to
>> >> be
>> >> > > said
>> >> > > > > on both sides here, so we must, to achieve a 'philosophical
>> >> > > triumph'
>> >> > > > > hold to our philosophical values, as you Terry said to me,
>> >> what
>> >> > > was
>> >> > > > > it, something to the effect of if you do not stand for
>> >> something
>> >> > > you
>> >> > > > > stand for nothing? Back to the point, a principle that many
>> >> > > here, I
>> >> > > > > think even Paul, have claimed to support is tracing
>> >> initiation
>> >> > > of
>> >> > > > > force to its source in determing who is the agressor, or
>> >> where
>> >> > > the
>> >> > > > > agression is comming from.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > In the case of Abortion, were is the agression comming from,
>> >> is
>> >> > > it
>> >> > > > > comming from the child? Not hardly, the child did not exhist
>> >> > > prior
>> >> > > > > to conception and had no conscious part in it. It was
>> >> actions
>> >> > > taken
>> >> > > > > by the parents that are responsible for its very being. This
>> >> is
>> >> > > an
>> >> > > > > important to mention, responsible, as the are responsible
>> >> for
>> >> > > this
>> >> > > > > life.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > The fetus, for Paul who enjoys the term, is alive, and
>> >> abortion
>> >> > > > > terminates that life, it kills the fetus, who is not
>> >> responsible
>> >> > > for
>> >> > > > > the condition of the mother. The agression is the act of the
>> >> > > > > responsible party, terminating the very exhistance of the
>> >> 2nd
>> >> > > party
>> >> > > > > to avoid there own responsibilities and consequences of
>> >> there
>> >> > > > > actions. Nothing could be to me, more unlibertarian.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > I however, do understand that not every one thinks like me,
>> >> and
>> >> > > > > believe there should not be a federal law banning abortion.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > Also, I just want to say, if I haven't before, that I love
>> >> > > hearing
>> >> > > > > from you on the board Thomas.
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > >
>> >> > > > > --- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
>> >> > > > > <thomaslknapp@> wrote:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Quoth Boyd:
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > > It may be a philosophical victory
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > It would be neither philosophical nor a victory.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > In order for it to be "philosophical," it would have to
>> >> > > incorporate
>> >> > > > > > reasoned argument rather than simply bluster and attempted
>> >> > > > > > authoritative personal ukase.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > In order for it to be a "victory," it would have to elicit
>> >> a
>> >> > > > > reaction
>> >> > > > > > from its audience to the effect that it _is_ reasoned
>> >> argument
>> >> > > > > rather
>> >> > > > > > than bluster and ukase.
>> >> > > > > >
>> >> > > > > > Tom Knapp
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
SPONSORED LINKS
| Libertarian | English language | Political parties |
| Online dictionary | American politics |
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.
