This is why I must reject to cave to the desire of individuals who
wish to close debate down to a scale they deem managable and
benificial to there goals rather than benificial to impartiality.
Social security, titles, etc are part of legal rights dirived from
the state. I reject the idea that LIFE is protected only by legal
rights, making it little more than a privledge. Terry is very
ademant at how he defines a person, I am very ademant as to what I
describe as the human right to life. This is not given by the state
by an inate inalienable right.
Legal rights may require the devices of the state such as a social
security number to label and track us for life. Human rights are not
dependant on such things.
hu·man n.
1)A member of the genus Homo and especially of the species H.
sapiens.
2)A person.
right n.
1) Something that is due to a person
2) Something, especially humane treatment, claimed to be due to
animals by moral principle.
life n.
1)The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from
dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or
adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
2)The characteristic state or condition of a living organism.
Human Right to Life, do you believe in it or is your life the
property of the superstate, forget everything and ask yourself that.
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I would just like to humbly add my own to this masterful exposure
> of anti-abortionism:
>
> If fetuses are persons, then I should be able to will my estate
> to my pregnant niece's. So that means fetuses will have to,
> immediately after conception, acquire things like names and
> genders and ss-numbers. Of course that also means that my other
> niece's fetus would have the right to contest my will. I can see
> it now: both wombs in court, wired to ultrasound, with an
> "interpreter". Well whomever wins better not forget to pay the
> inheritance and property taxes or they might end up in fetus-jail
> (and loose their freedom and their rights).
>
> -Mark
>
> ************
> {American jurors have complete Constitutional authority to vote
> "not guilty" based on nothing more than a disagreement with the
> case, no matter the evidence - despite the judge's instructions.
> There is absolutely no obligation to vote "guilty" to arrive at a
> unanimous verdict. Get on a jury, stand your ground, and fulfill
> its other main purpose: to counteract abusive government and
> unjust lawsuits.
> See www.fija.org
> [Please adopt this as your own signature.] }
>
>
> -----------------------
>
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
> I would argue that a just law is one which is enforceable in
> every case and
> one in which the costs of enforcement do not exceed what is
> acceptable, are
> not worse than the crime, the cost/benefit argument.
>
> Most Libertarians would say the laws against smoking marijuana
> are bad on
> both counts. Only a fraction of smokers can be apprehended,
> which makes
> enforcement arbitrary and capricious. And the cost of
> enforcement, home invasions
> by SWAT teams, illegal searches, etc., plus maintaining prisons
> and breaking
> up families and foregoing the productive output of the convicted
> person, etc.
> etc. exceeds any social benefit from having a smoker use tobacco
> instead of
> weed.
>
> Something like half, possibly two thirds, of fertilized eggs
> (people, to the
> pro-lifers) spontaneously abort or fail to implant or die early
> in the
> gestation. In most cases, the mother doesn't even know.
> However, if abortion is
> homicide, then every lifeless zygote should be treated as a dead
> human.
> First, it must be found. All tampons and sanitary napkins must
> be turned in to
> the county medical examine to determine if a fertilized egg is
> present and, if
> so, to issue a death certificate. Then the grand jury (a bunch
> of ignorant
> and bigoted clods who don't have the wit to be excused from jury
> duty) must
> determine whether the death was "natural" or "murder". (How are
> they supposed
> to determine that?) Then, of course, there must be a proper
> burial or
> cremation of the corpse, including, in most states, a coffin and
> a designated
> cemetery. It the death of the zygote was not "natural", perhaps
> a third of the
> cases, both the mother and the doctor are guilty of
> pre-meditated murder, and
> subject, in most states, to the death penalty. Jailing or
> executing two
> adults is very expensive, and their children become wards of the
> state, and their
> student loans are defaulted on, and they don't pay taxes, and...
> It there
> is anything less than 100 per cent prosecution and severe
> penalties for
> feticide, then we are making a mockery of the law and depriving
> other murderers,
> like drive-by shooters, of the equal protection (or neglect) of
> the law. What
> is it about "murder" you don't understand, Ms. Juror?
>
> Additional questions: Suppose a teen age girl has a late period
> and doesn't
> tell anyone, flushing her tampon down the toilet? Can she be
> prosecuted for
> abuse of a corpse? Tampering with evidence? Does she have an
> excuse of
> "accidental death" because she miscounted her birth control
> pills, took too few
> and then too many, resulting in a accidental conception and an
> accidental
> abortion? What if she claims it was God's way of giving her a
> second chance,
> because she was genuinely contrite about letting Johnny do that
> thing?
>
> Then there is the Terry Schiavo problem. If two doctors
> determine that an
> adult has no functioning brain, the adult can be declared "brain
> dead" and
> deprived of further life support. What if a pregnant woman goes
> to two doctors
> who pronounce her blastocyst "brainless" (no neural tube formed
> yet), can
> life support be withdrawn? If not, why the double standard?
>
> Extending the logic of an embryo of a human is a human, then an
> embryo of a
> pine tree is a pine tree. If I burn a pine cone, I have burned a
> whole
> forest! that should be good for several years in jail.
>
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.
