In a message dated 5/27/2006 9:41:45 A.M. Central Standard Time,
[email protected] writes:
The woman in the non special case scenario is not only the agressor,
but the agression is also a response to a desire to avoid the
consequences of freely undertaken actions on her part. This fact,
for me, adds to the previous justifications of aplication of non
agression and of the degree of infrindgement on liberty.
Does a woman have a right to indulge her vanity by contracting for cosmetic
surgery, perhaps liposuction? Probably most readers would answer yes.
Suppose a woman fears breast cancer (her mother and sisters died of it) and elects
to have a double mastectomy, is that OK? Probably yes. Suppose her mother
and sisters died of ovarian cancer, or cervical cancer, and the woman wishes
a voluntary hysterectomy, is that OK? And, if it turns out she had an
implanted embryo, is she guilty of homicide? If so, should the prosecutor ask for
the death penalty, as it was clearly premeditated, first degree murder? And
how is the human race better off for killing the woman?
[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.
