You are FAR too kind.
But I might have to qualify my earlier compliment. It seems Paul
Ireland MAY have thought of this principle before. His "tape worm
does not have extra rights" comment takes the same viewpoint.
Paul, you there? I think Mary just made me understand its
brilliance. Was that yours?
-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.] }
-----------------
Mark: Your re-phrasing is exactly right. It's original. I
always think what you say is brilliant too. At least, I can't
think of an exception. Mary
mark robert <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Mary,
That's brilliant!
So you are actually not violating the rights of the fetus when
getting an abortion, even if it had personhood status; because
you can't violate rights that no person can have. Have I
rephrased you correctly?
Is that original, or who haven't I been reading?
-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.] }
------------
Suppose that a zygote, fetus, whatever, IS a human being. Why
shoud it have more rights than you or I or other human beings?
If you or I need a kidney, or a liver, or only a pint of blood
to survive--and if there is only one person in the world (a
relative, perhaps) who can be the donor--the law does not insist
that that person endorse our right to life by donating parts of,
or use of, their body.
You or I could--and probably would--make out a case that the
person who refused to donate even a mere pint of blood for us in
order for us to survive was a very bad person, indeed. And
probably, they WOULD BE a bad person. Still, under law, no one is
held down, kicking and screaming, while some of their blood, or
whatever is extracted from them.
You and I do not have the right to others' bodies, even if it
makes the difference between life and death for us. Why should
the unborn?
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.
