Do you remember all that I ever propossed was that it should not be libertarian policy to be pro abortion.
[ModeratorNote: *IF* by the term 'libertarian policy' you mean the policy of the USA Libertarian Party then it is already NOT 'pro abortion' The LP policy supports a general right of women to choose to abort their own pregnancies. That is no more 'pro abortion' than is the LP position 'pro drugs' due to it advocating repealing govt drug prohibition. Advocating the freedom to do something is NOT the same as saying it should be done. -TLP ]
I have little more intrest than you to be drug into the black whole of mindless debate, I just wanted to make some noise in an equal and
oposite preportion to Paul when he advocated it.
[Moderator: Which, perhaps, is why you got 'drug into the black whole of mindless debate' :) ]
I feel that my sumation can still be applied. If, lacking evidence
that is generaly acceptable as factual to imply other wise, the new
human should be granted rights on principle. We must then examine
the conflict of intrest to see who's actions are the initiation of
force.
[ModeratorNote: the personhood rights of which we speak are not by us 'granted' but may or may not by us be recognized. -TLP ]
The child, lacking generaly accepted evidence to suggest other wise,
is not making a choice of action that constitutes agression. Barring
cases of rape or other coercion the new humans state of being is a
result of an action freely undertook by the new mother. Prior to
that act the new human did not exhist and it can not be reasonable
proposed that his comming to exhistance was an initiation of force
on it's part. Under a normal pregnancy the child will not make any
actions that could not be reasonably expected by a woman of normal
mental capacity. The child certainly can not consent to its own
death, and is thus executed via an initiation of force.
[Moderator: Since you have not made a case for recognizing personhood of this developing human life form why do you propose an unlibertarian violation of the rights of the recognized person in this scenario, the mother? -TLP ]
What is more apropriately libertarian, when you have two parties,
and have no generaly accepted consensus on if the 2nd party has
rights:
To risk denying the rights of a person, to defend an initiation of
force?
OR
To risk extending rights rights to an individual not deemed a
person, and holding the 1st individual responsible for freely
undertaken actions?
A philosophical stance has to be with out contradiction or
hypocricy. I can't see any logical way to argue against an 8 month
old with out denying a 10 month old, or a 10 year old for that
matter those same rights on the same principle.
As far as law goes, I am fine with legal abortion as long these two
things hold true, the first is that they don't try to distort
anyhting with logic that is unacceptable to me and acknowledge they are ending an inocnet human life, it would be quite peachy with me if they had a medical consent form asserting as much, and secondly I as an indivudal acknowledge to be a person with rights, would have the
right to seek justice if I feel wronged by an individual ending the
life of my own child with out my consent.
Thanks for the constructive post Thomas, I feel it at least gave me
some direction toward wich to respond.
--- In [email protected], "Thomas L. Knapp"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Quoth uncoolrabbit:
>
> > While we argue for the ultimate truth, is it not more
Libertarian to
> > first protect rights and seek the justification to deny them
(such
> > as a determination that the individual is entitled to recieve
rights
> > or be deemed a 'person') rather than to first deny these rights
then
> > demand the justification for there acknowledgement?
>
> A good summation, but you're missing a key point:
>
> In terms of policy, the libertarian prescription is that only those
> activities which are an initiation of force may be
prohibited/punished.
>
> So far, we've assumed that an adult woman is a "person" with
rights --
> do you care to argue otherwise?
>
> If an adult woman is a "person" with rights, then anyone wanting to
> prohibit/punish any activity in she might choose to engage --
> including procuring an abortion -- bears the burden of proof for
> establishing that that activity is an initiation of force.
>
> She doesn't have to prove that the fetus is NOT a person -- those
> wanting to interfere/punish her for aborting it have to prove that
it
> IS ... because if it isn't, the whole affair is none of their
business.
>
> 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.
