> I think I see your point, but I suspect Tom of getting ready to
> think about starting to prepare to try to attribute rights to
> fetuses - by first giving them the status of a whole human being,
> and trying to get us to agree. I know he has claimed a degree of
> neutrality on the issue, but he has also been critical of
> abortion elements and is obviously trying to bump up the
> legal/political status of the fetus. OOH, why argue with him
> until he goes out on that limb that you describe? OTOH, he is
> incorrect about the "wholeness" of the fetus, no matter the
> existence or non-existence of an agenda. (You know me; gotta
> argue them fine points.)
Mark,
I have not in any way intimated that I am possessed of some kind of
"neutrality." I am not*. But I'm also not interested in arguing
abortion _per se_. What I am interested in is improving the quality of
argument about abortion from the "pro-choice" side.
My "agenda" is to TRY to get the "pro-choice" side to stop arguing
from superstitious/religious "Fetus Fairy" premises and to instead
make logical arguments from factual premises. I have reasons for
wanting to accomplish this, but those reasons are not related to any
given outcome of further debate on abortion. They're related to
improving the quality of libertarian argument, including of the
"pro-choice" variety.
Regards,
Tom Knapp
* I am nominally on the "pro-life" side of the issue -- but I just
don't consider it an "important" issue in the _political_ sense
insofar as there's no likely constituency waiting for libertarian
representation on it.
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.
