infant libertarian political ethics does not demand anyone support or
feed the infant but libertarian ethics also does not allow anyone in
such a case to kill the infant even if killing the infant would
shorten the pain and suffering of the child. But as the heir of Ayn
Rand wrote once, I think his name is Peikoff or something. he wrote
that if a society would not be willing to lend support a orphan or
widow no rattional person would want to live there.Meaning there is
other rational motives beyond libertarian or objectivist ethics.---
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.
