life, they are not owned by anyone but their parents have a duty of
guardenship to a reasonable amount of protection and support that can
not be arbitarly set by state legislation. The parents invite the
guest into their world knowing the infant could not take care of
itself, the parents have no right to own the child or sell it into
slavery or to sell its birthright which is necessary to live and
liberty.
Adult children can also take guardnship of parents who are in
the last stages of dementa if the parents did not live written
instrcutions to that effect or otherwise but the adult children do
not own the parents they can not murder the parents or sell them into
slavery.
If others think either a parent is violating the rights of an
infant or an adult child is violating the rights of a parent they can
present the evidence before a prosecutor and or a grandjury and later
before a peiti jury if the case goes to trial but the burden of proof
is on the state and the state can not appeal but the defedent can.
Plus the defedent can counter sue the person who present the case
before the prosecutor, the prosecutor and the
state.
Like most things this too is case by case, a mercy killing in
some cases may be justfied but all killings including those of self
defense should be
investigated.
The standard for libertarians is a respect for the life
of a human beings and a respect for human rights. Infacide and the
killing of the old or sick in general is crude uncivil barberism even
when practice in the Modern state of the
Nertherlands.
If a fetus or even a zygote is a human being then
libertarians must suuport its right to life but they must also
suuport the mothers right to self defense. There is no need of,
special costitutional amendments or special legislation, it is basic
case by case law. Did a killing of a human being occur in this case?
If a killing of a human being occured was it self defense or
homocide? If it was homicide what degree of homicide was it. Do you
have enough evidence to prove before 12 jurors beyond a reasonable
doubt the points of your case? Remember as a prosecutor of the state
neither you or the state can appeal but the defedent can. So do you
not only have enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to convince
all 12 members of the jury but convince the judges in appeal as far
as the defedent will carry it?--- In
[email protected], "Terry L Parker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Ready for grenade thrown over wall?
>
> In some societies infanticide is NOT considered to be murder. If
you
> believe that to be wrong, explain why you believe human infants
have
> a right to life if there is no actual person freely willing to
> provide support to that individual.
>
> It's been my experience that an occasional kick in the ass may
remove
> some heads far enough to see beyond their own shit :)
>
>
> -Terry Liberty Parker
> LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism
> at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48288
>
>
>
>
> --- In [email protected], "mark robert" <colowe@> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> >
> > Now your post is confusing assembling (reproductive process) with
> > growth and maintaining (post-parturition process). Simple growth
> > does not a reproductive stage make; all reproductive processes
> > are growth, but all growth is not reproduction. Birth is a clear
> > line of demarcation when the organs and systems are sufficiently
> > developed to afford the goal of development: sufficient
> > autonomous functionality.
> >
> > With regard to your comments on thresholds and qualitative vs
> > quantitative: Your posts are starting to show a pattern of
> > pro-lumping and anti-splitting. Your positions seem to depend of
> > eliminating certain lines and distinctions and specifics. Science
> > is more or less interested in the opposite: it likes to identify
> > thresholds (both qualitative AND quantitative) - and split and
> > explain and describe and define and label and classify. Your post
> > is getting warmer when it concedes that a threshold may be a
> > factor; that is precisely what it is all about: thresholds,
> > lines, classifications, etc.
> >
> > -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,
> >
> > > You awake now?
> >
> > Yep. Unfortunately, what you're saying makes no more sense than
> > it did
> > when I was still groggy.
> >
> > If an organism isn't "whole" because it is in a process of
> > assembling
> > itself, then there is no such thing as a whole organism. You may
> > or
> > may not have noticed, but your own body is _continually_
> > assembling
> > itself -- growing hair, growing nails, manufacturing skin, etc.
> >
> > There may be a qualitative threshold below which a human being is
> > not
> > a "person," but the difference with respect to being a "human
> > being"
> > between you and the zygote that you used to be is quantitative,
> > not
> > qualitative. You ARE that organism, just older and having done
> > more.
> > If it wasn't a "human being," neither are you.
> >
> > Tom Knapp
> >
>
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.
