-----
If someone were dependent upon you continually to replenish some
substance, say, on a daily basis, to keep that person alive, and
supposing you to be the only possible donor, would it be an "act of
aggression" for you to discontinue doing the replenishment, letting
the person die?
-----
There are circumstances under which it would be.
Suppose you were paralyzed from the neck down, without all the new
modern bells and whistles (blow tubes, etc.) that let the paralyzed
control wheelchairs, dial phones, etc., and I was your caretaker. I
received $X per week to take care of your every need, and my contract
specified that I must give two weeks notice if I intend to quit, and
that in such an event I must notify some specified agency so that they
could find a new caretaker.
If I broke that contract -- just got up one day, said "screw you, I
quit," walked out the door and left you to starve without giving
notice or notifying the agency -- I most certainly would be aggressing
against you, by denying something I was contractually obligated to
deliver (which is, indirectly, stealing something that is yours).
-----
If yes, then abortion would also be an "act of aggression."
-----
Not necessarily.
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.
