is already rife with people talking past each other :(
-Terry Liberty Parker
Please see what I wrote in this forum as
'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48100
--- In [email protected], "terry12622000" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> David I tend to agree with the prolife libertarians more than the
pro
> 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" <dmacko@> 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" <ptireland@>
> > 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.
