pregnant is NOT choosing to give birth. Becoming pregnant with the
intent to give birth, does NOT mean you can't change your mind later.
To suggest that people must "live with the consequences" is to suggest
if they make a wrong turn, they must drive off a cliff rather than
correcting their course.
NOTHING inside the body of a person (which has not been born and
obtained rights) has rights, especially rights over and above the
person in which it resides. The host can revoke permission at ANY
time for ANY reason and nobody else on earth has any say in the matter.
--- In [email protected], "wgilbert02" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Paul,
>
> How is a pregnant woman a non-consentual other? If I smoke 3 packs
> of cigaretts a day for 30 years knowing full well of the dangers, I
> have chosen to accept the consequences of such actions. Likewise, by
> having intercourse one consents to the possible consequences of such
> actions, whether they desire children or not. Is it not at the core
> of libertarianism for one to be free to choose how to live their life
> but also being responsible for the decisions made under those
> freedoms.
>
> This is not to say or imply that I am "pro-life"(who could really say
> they are "pro-abortion"?), as I think everyone agrees that
> circumstances often require abortions. But I also believe that
> whether a fetus is a human or not, every abortion does kill, as a
> fetus is a potential human being. Of course, philosophically, you
> could argue this to its end by claiming birth control and
> masturbation are equal to abortion. Its a pretty messy issue I've
> fluctuated on, so don't take this post as though I'm trying to start
> an argument. Just want to hear your thoughts.
>
> Bucky
>
> --- In [email protected], "Paul" <ptireland@> wrote:
> >
> > I said to claim a fetus (or even a person) has a right to exist at
> the
> > expense of a non-consenting other, is to claim that a tapeworm has
> > more rights over the body of its host than the host has for itself.
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In [email protected], Mary Dolan <cosecha@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Mark, I would like to emphasize that I think whoever would not go
> > out of his or her way to, say, donate a pint of blood, when he or
> she
> > is the only possible donor, in a life-or-death situation, is almost
> > certainly a vile and abhorrent person. Still, the choice is between
> > letting a vile and abhorrent person have his way--or legislating
> that
> > people can be FORCED to relinquish or to donate pieces or capacities
> > of their bodies against their wills. The latter alternative is
> REALLY
> > abhorrent.
> > >
> > > (On a personal note: do you have 2 kidneys? You could probably
> do
> > with just one, you know. Maybe you should be FORCED to donate a
> > kidney, especially if there is someone who might die without such a
> > donation specifically from you. --And what if everyone agrees the
> > person needing the kidney is more important than you?).
> > >
> > > (I can remember Paul Ireland said something about tapeworms,
> but I
> > cannot remember what he said).
> > >
> > >
> > > mark robert <colowe@> wrote:
> > > All,
> > >
> > > I don't think we're going to find any peer-reviewed source that
> > > says zygotes equal human beings. Since science usually splits
> > > things into MORE classes (not LESS), then it will tend to
> > > separate - not combine. Plus, when we discuss personhood and
> > > rights and abortion issues, we're talking about more than one
> > > discipline (and more than just science?). Maybe we could find
> > > some kind of better "authority" by looking to other fields like
> > > social sciences or political sciences or anthropology, but even
> > > if we found something, it would probably not be credible or
> > > definitive enough to satisfy all of us. Of course you can find
> > > "zygote" in descriptions of "human beings", but only in terms of
> > > its definition: "an early developmental stage". We can try to
> > > find evidence here and there, but at best it will only be a
> > > product of our own construct. For example maybe I look to "human
> > > anatomy" for evidence. AH HA! There it is! The proof! Human
> > > anatomy always shows a mature human body - not an undeveloped
> > > one. Guess again, Marko; all you've found is another item for
> > > contention.
> > >
> > > The trouble with the abortion debate is that it takes perfect
> > > definitions, of things we have not yet obtained, to win either
> > > side. We must perfectly define such difficult things as "life"
> > > and "human" and how they are distinct from all things not. We
> > > also must better define "organism", "being", and "person" - and
> > > their perfect synonyms, antonyms, associated terms,
> > > non-associated terms, etc. Oops, I almost forgot "rights".
> > > Defining that alone is an intimidating task, regarding whether we
> > > call them "given", "attributed", "reserved", "created",
> > > "granted", "protected", "natural", "political", "legal", 'civil",
> > > "individual", "human", etc. Fat chance of all that being done
> > > very soon to any semblance of general agreement.
> > >
> > > But what the hell; that's no reason to not take a crack at rights
> > > again: In the world of free communication, nothing is
> > > self-evident, even the nose on your face. But relatively evident
> > > are hierarchical survival instincts of animal species. In
> > > general, especially with social species, more developed members
> > > of the species have more rights. Of course the fact that human
> > > rights are for humans only is a no-brainer (to most), but how
> > > does an intelligent species decide between its cocoons and its
> > > butterflies? Canadian Geese, and lots of other species, take a
> > > gradual approach. The closer the eggs are to hatching, the more
> > > fiercely they are defended. Right after laying, mother goose will
> > > quickly abandon her eggs when confronted by a predator (when a
> > > decision is necessary). Closer to hatching, she will fight to
> > > protect them at great risk to herself. After hatching, the
> > > goslings are even more fiercely defended. Looking at other animal
> > > models might help us better understand natural rights for our
> > > species.
> > >
> > > But now enter a whole new view proposed by Paul Ireland and Mary
> > > Dolan. (Mary, Paul may have thought of it first. But I did not
> > > understand Paul's reference to a Tape Worm until I read your
> > > recent post. Paul, you thought of this a long time ago, right?)
> > > Considering this new perspective, we may not have to do any of
> > > the above. All we need do is go ahead and recognize that fetuses
> > > have the same rights as mature humans. We simply do not give them
> > > EXTRA rights. Since mature humans do not have the right to feed
> > > off of others against their will (according to Constitutional,
> > > NAP and self-ownership principles), neither do fetuses. Under
> > > this view, the only decisions left are issues regarding whether
> > > "killing" the fetus prior to evacuating is a rights violation,
> > > and issues regarding whether not feeding your infant is a rights
> > > violation (child neglect). HA! No problem!
> > >
> > > -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.] }
> > >
> > > --------------------
> > >
> > >
> > > Terry,
> > >
> > > > In the references you quoted, I did not see the word zygote
> > > equated
> > > > to the term 'human being'
> > >
> > > Interesting tactic: Reject explicit cites because they aren't
> > > concise/readily available enough to suit you, and reject
> > > concise/readily available cites because they aren't explicit
> > > enough to
> > > suit you.
> > >
> > > > I don't see that extending the term 'human being' to include a
> > > zygote
> > > > is either justified or helpful to communication
> > >
> > > Neither do I. Fortunately, no such "extension" is needed, since
> > > the
> > > term "human being" already does, and always has, included a
> > > zygote.
> > >
> > > Tom Knapp
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> > > --------------------~-->
> > > Protect your PC from spy ware with award winning anti spy
> > > technology. It's free.
> > > http://us.click.yahoo.com/97bhrC/LGxNAA/yQLSAA/KlSolB/TM
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > ---~->
> > >
> > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>
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.
