 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Nice term "non-sentient tissue structure". Merely because the fetus has yet to develop sentiency doesn't mean that it won't-- aborting it robs it of its right to do so. I think timing is irrelevant. I think that's why IUDs were such a bad (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I kind of screwed up my wording, as you and Tim have both correctly pointed out. I addressed my actual meaning in my reply to his post, stating, in essence, that the evolutionary purpose for sex is reproduction, but reproduction can no longer (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I didn't state that very clearly, and I apologize. I meant that the sole purpose of sex cannot be identified as reproduction, at least not among species able to choose when they want to copulate. (...) Let me be clear--the fact that it is (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Perhaps you should try listening to "Unplugged" by Spirit of the West, for a view of it :) Some of us think that it is NOT up to the government to make a decision on the matter. It is a _personal_ choice, and one that if you are wise, you (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) So you're stating that sex is an end to itself, and pregnancy is an occasional accident? So basically...we accidentally have a population of some 6 billion. I can't agree. Though sex has its own individual merits, the obvious natural purpose (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
