choice but I don't agree with either entirely. I don't think we need
special legislation for abortion, it is either murder or it is not
both the mother and the doctor could be charged with murder. The
mother can claim self defense, Personally I think any killing of a
human should be presented to a Grand Jury, the Grand Jury would
decided if there is enough evidence to take it to trial before the
regular jury. I also think the decesion should be uniamous with to
take a case to trial. The grand jury should have at least 23 members
but could have more. If a prosecutor decided not to bring forth a
case of a killing of a fetus or even a zygote because he thought it
was not a human being the Grandjury could investagate the case anyway
to see if it had a human
standing.
I think disproving the great majority of mothers claim of
self defense would be very hard and the grand juries would probably
only send a few cases to trial, the regular jury would convict even
fewer, they would give anything more than a light sentence to even
fewer and even fewer mothers and doctors would lose on
appeals.
Since self defense in case of abortion is so hard to disprove
most mothers will claim self defense even if that was not the case.
Taking a morning after pill or some other means to self abort a
zygote would probably almost never go before a grand jury unless
complications to the mothers health arose and the doctor cocluded
that was the reason then reported
it.
If abortion is murder and I think in many cases it is then mothers
and abortionist and drug providers can easily get away with
murder.
It would be a very good idea to convince mothers that there is
better options and private groups, friends and family to lend support
for those better alternative some which are abistence from
intercourse, better methods of birth control, adoption, co-parenting
with other mothers, couples, grandparents or other family members
including allowing the mother to be compensated by an adoptation
couple at market rates, encouraging and insisting the man to take
responsiblity but if he is at risk for the support, he should also be
compensated in case the mother is compensated for the adoption.--- In
[email protected], "David Macko" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Since you don't have time to study the pro-life libertarian
> position, in areas where my knowledge is incomplete I will
> continue to rely on Ron Paul until you have obtained degrees
> in obstetrics and gynecology, delivered at least 4,000 babies,
> defended the cause of liberty in Congress for significant portions
> of the last four decades and run for President of the United States
> as a life member of the Libertarian Party. Subject closed.
>
> For life and liberty,
> David Macko
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <[email protected]>
> Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 12:35 PM
> Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
>
>
> Why would I waste my time on a website based on a false premise, and
> which violates the most sacred of libertarian principles .... sole
> dominion over our own body and the contents within.
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "David Macko" <dmacko@> wrote:
> >
> > Apparently you still have not had enough time to completely
> > read all of the information at www.l4l.org.
> >
> > For life and liberty,
> > David Macko
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Paul" <ptireland@>
> > To: <[email protected]>
> > Sent: Monday, May 15, 2006 9:48 AM
> > Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Badnarik on Immigration
> >
> >
> > >A zygote is not a human being. It does not posess human life.
it has
> > > the POTENTIAL for human life, but does not have it. Separate
DNA does
> > > not amount to human life. A fetus is not a whole human being.
A
> > > whole human being is a fully sentient person and a fetus is
not. We
> > > can use Terry's definition of person if you choose.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<uncoolrabbit@>
> > > wrote:
> > >>
> > >> A sperm cell is not human life but it has the potential to be,
a
> > >> human egg cell is not human life but it has the potential to
be so.
> > >> A human fetus is not a piece of one human whole such as your
arm, it
> > >> is itself a human whole. You would be wiser to cop out and
follow
> > >> Terry's lead of personhood, as a human fetus is human. If you
sever
> > >> your arm its self mutilation, suggesting problems that I am
not
> > >> trained to deal with.
> > >>
> > >> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > My arm is a human arm. It has human DNA, and it's alive.
If I
> > >> sever
> > >> > my arm, have I murdered someone? Human life is different
from any
> > >> > other. Human life belongs to people (aka persons).
> > >> >
> > >> > Here are a list of things that do NOT qualify as HUMAN
life.
> > >> >
> > >> > A beating heart
> > >> > A cerebral cortex
> > >> > A nervous system
> > >> > Human DNA
> > >> > Reflexive Actions or response to painful stimuli
> > >> > Head, Torso, Hands, Feet, Fingers, Toes, Eyes, Ears, Nose,
or Mouth
> > >> > The shape of a human being
> > >> >
> > >> > An acorn is not an oak tree but it has the POTENTIAL to be
one.
> > >> Dough
> > >> > is not bread, but it has the POTENTIAL to be. A fetus is
not a
> > >> human
> > >> > being but it has the POTENTIAL to be one.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
<uncoolrabbit@>
> > >> > wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On what basis do you feel it apropriate to twist, contort
and
> > >> > > outright lie about my statements Terry? I attribute
HUMANESS to
> > >> the
> > >> > > fetus Terry. The response was to Paul, who does not merely
argue
> > >> > > that a fetus does not fit a definition of personhood. Paul
> > >> outright
> > >> > > claims that a human fetus is not human despite the fact
that it
> > >> is
> > >> > > indead a human fetus, not a baboon fetus, not an antelope
fetus
> > >> not
> > >> > > anything like that. My post remains below yours to remind
you
> > >> that
> > >> > > not once did I use the word Personhood in it.
> > >> > >
> > >> > > --- In [email protected], "Terry L Parker"
> > >> <txliberty@>
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > On what basis do you assert that the property of
personhood be
> > >> > > > attributed to a pre-born human individual?
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > Please see what I wrote in this forum as
> > >> > > > 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
> > >> > > > at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48100
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > -Terry Liberty Parker
> > >> > > > http://profiles.yahoo.com/txliberty
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > >
> > >> > > > --- In [email protected], "uncoolrabbit"
> > >> <uncoolrabbit@>
> > >> > > > wrote:
> > >> > > > >
> > >> > > > > A much better statement of yourpoint of view than
recently,
> > >> but
> > >> > > > > you "obviously are trying to" strip the human
atrribute from
> > >> a
> > >> > > > human
> > >> > > > > organism, just as the slaver or the fascist before
you. :)
>
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.
