 | | 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)
|
