I am very reluctantly infavor of the death penalty; torture & murder, serial murderers, child killings but with strong first hand witnessing. Defining that could be difficult but Jeffrey Dahmer, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, etc.
But as far as the female being drunk or stoned, getting drunk and then driving and killing someone is looked upon askancely. She first decided to drink or use. She's responsible for the results after. Let's leave it at that. Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. Board Certified Family Physician Politicians and government officials are like diapers. They should be changed often and for the same reasons. ________________________________ From: earl reese <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Tue, April 13, 2010 2:59:34 AM Subject: Re: [LibertarianExchange] Abortion. Yes. A very legitimate POV. But if you stop and think, those stats from '69 to present may very well be correct. As many as it sounds it isn't "that many" for 41 years with 350 million people. My POV is two fold. First, I must feel that the living, breathing human has dominion over their bodily functions. I feel this must be primary regardless of others feelings or religious beliefs (see R vs. W). With me this is a huge thing. Secondly, and very secondly at that, we must understand that there are those that hold life as santiounious. Whether it is a religious or ethical position doesn't really matter. There remains the question of where an individuals rights lie and where society may step in to protect "another". But your (semi) argument doesn't hold water to me. Let's say the gal was drunk or stoned (or both...been there in the day) and got preggo. So? She no longer has right of dominion over her primary property? Sorry, I just don't and never will buy that. You, or ya'll, may step up to "protect the baby". Good for you. To me there isn't a baby until I hear it cry. If you follow the logic this is how this always plays out. If you have a god that requires (human) life to have sanctity then you must define the "beginning" of such life. This is tough and most easily done as the joining of egg and sperm even if we know that fully 1/3 of them spontaneously abort. So? Some of us disagree. Now what? You bring up State's rights here. I think that is an important issue. Unfortunately, the R vs. W decision broadly defined "rights" of individuals that were previously alluded to in the 10th amendment. This becomes serious in the sense of how far do you want to interfere with the very real lives of other people and how far are you willing to support those decisions financially. And if you are willing to react as a force of government are you willing to provide support in the form of a tax on everyone? Sticky, ain't it? I mean lots of good christians, people want to overturn R vs W, or think they do. But, if you look at the decision in a way that speaks to the decision and not abortion do you really? If you do you are not a libertarian. You are a State's rightist conservative. There is a huge difference. Do you think THE INDIVIDUAL has the right of dominion or do you think some government does? Moreover, how in the world could anyone ever support the sancity argument and the death penalty? That makes absolutely no logical sense what so ever. Sorry, but this gets into much deeper realms, such as free will, than I think ya'll want to discuss here. On Sat, Apr 3, 2010 at 7:56 PM, Roderick T. Beaman <crazylibertarian@ yahoo.com> wrote: >NYS legalized abortion around 1969. California did the same under Gov. Ronald >Reagan. Since then and Roe vs. Wade there have been about 52 million >abortions. Figure it’s been about 1 million yearly. > >The most frequently cited reasons for abortion rights are: >1. Cases of rape, >2. Incest. >3. Deaths from illegal abortions >4. Fetal abnormalities. >There is no way that there were 52 million pregnancies that fell into the >above categories. > >Just recently, I tried to find the number of deaths annually from abortions in >this country. I did a Google search and could not find the statistics. The >number of deaths from abortion were plummeting prior to those events, largely >credited to antibiotics. > >As far a woman’s right to have dominion over her body, I ask precisely what >she was exercising when she did the actions that resulted in the pregnancy. In >other than cases of rape, by definition, she had made choice. Pregnancy was a >logical possibility and actions have consequences. Libertarians should at >least recognize that. > Roderick T. Beaman,D.O. >Board Certified Family Physician >Politicians and government officials are like diapers. >They should be changed often and for the same reasons. > > -- Earl “It is important to remember that government interference always means either violent action or the threat of such action. . . . Taxes are paid because the taxpayers are afraid of offering resistance to the tax gatherers." Ludwig Heinrich Edler von Mises
