Sorry, I'm still missing your point. Or maybe you have none other
than to disprove mine. Surely you are not supporting the position
that infants do not have rights and can be killed. Maybe I'm
being dense, but you're gonna have to elaborate more than what
you have to get this one through to this ole boy.
-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.] }
-------------------
A mouse also wants to live, but I don't think many would regard
it as
a person (entity able to have rights/obligations)
Please see what I wrote in 'PERSONHOOD: Abortion & beyond'
at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/message/48519
-TLP
--- In [email protected], "mark robert" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> Terry P,
>
> 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.
