I think I've seen you refer to infanticide before, but I could
not comprehend your point. Here you go again. You seem to be
either critical of the NAP, or supporting infanticide. I'm sure
you are going somewhere interesting. Maybe you can explain more
after I take your challenge: An infant is obviously interested in
surviving/living. It demonstrates this in a number of ways.
Conversely, it shows a disinterest in suffering/dying with clear
non-consent.
-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.] }
----------------------
While I agree with the described compassionate view of most
people, I
challenge you to identify how & why infanticide, per se, is
prohibited by a universal application of libertarianism's non-
aggression principle (NAP) which says:
'no person may intiate, or do a credible threat to initiate,
physical
assault upon the body or justly held possessions of unconsenting
other person'
-Terry Liberty Parker
see: 'LIMITED vs UNIVERSAL Libertarianism'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48456
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.
