 | | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
(...) Larry, It is not a good debate unless someone storms out of the room and slams the door. In other words we need someone to leave LUGNET for the debate to be complete. ;-) Now you can understand why I am not in the thick of it. I do not recall (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
I second the motion. I think that, while I have become one of the Usual Suspects recently, I have chosen to bite my tongue on this matter, since I've argued it so many times in the past I know there will be no agreement, and only frustration in the (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
(...) Hey the only way not to set off the standard debate is to not chime in. Which is why I havn't and won't. (...) I would agree. No one is going to get anywhere debating the issue because for most people there is only one side to the issue. Why (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Not to mention accurate. (...) So non-sentient tissue has rights, too? Do these rights supercede the rights of the sentient mother? Why? On what grounds? (...) Timing is the essence of the matter. (...) Nonsense. You are stating outright that (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | What am I missing here?
|
|
I think someone made one offhand remark about abortion in a thread. That was followed by several people all chiming in (me included) all saying they didn't want to set off the standard debate. Now we have all the Usual Suspects(tm) posting the usual (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | 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)
|
