 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Why should we EXPECT government to get involved with a choice over our own lives, if it does not affect others? That's just plain WRONG. -- Tom Stangl ***(URL) Visual FAQ home ***(URL) Bay Area DSMs (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
Hi Maggie, This is debate, so that's what we'll do. "Maggie Cambron" <mcambron@pacbell.net> wrote in message... (...) I'm (...) clarification. I disagree. I don't believe anyone's viewpoint will be swayed if we all keep our opinions to ourselves. I (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
Thanks James "James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3tuoG.CBD@lugnet.com... (...) woman (...) justice (...) confronting (...) intelligence (...) has (...) emergence (...) a (...) base (...) emerges (...) womb (...) matter (...) (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Yes, this can get a little crazy. When I say potential, I mean the potential of an *already* fertilized egg which has a specific genetic code in place. I think I can safely argue the potentiality of a fertilized egg without having to consider (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
(...) Thanks! (...) Why be mad about that? Small time stuff. Heck, be like me and be mad about the whole shouting match. The duopoly we have stinketh, and the minor illegalities(1) pale beside how the law itself is rigged. 1 - not that they should (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I know Larry has called for sitting out this one, but I've got an interesting comment here... One does have to be a bit carefull about protecting the "potential" of human life. I read a short story once which took this idea to an extreme. In (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: The Right To Exploit (WAS: Concerns regarding Brick-o-Lizer User Agreement)
|
|
(...) Especially when the "spirit" of the LMBOLUA is part of the ambiguity. We don't know what TLC is trying to accomplish via the terms they laid out. All we know is they put together a number of somewhat bizarre legalish terms. Now, if we had a (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
(...) Hopefully, Larry will figure out a new phrase, because he is constantly plowing the same ground with the "plowed ground" phrase! :-) Or has someone else complained, and thus this is plo....no, I won't say it. :-O (...) When I was a kid, I (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Your term may indeed be accurate, but I think that it does not do full justice to the inherent and latent qualities of the tissue structure. When confronting the abortion issue from either angle, the issue of potential *cannot* be avoided. My (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: What am I missing here?
|
|
(...) Cool! I've never been a Usual Suspect(tm) before! (...) A rare (in ot.debate) appeal to good sense which, even more rarely, has worked on me. I'll quit venting. (...) Okay, I'll quit that pointless debate. But I'm still so mad about George (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
