 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I think this is already clear, but just in case, me too. (...) Yup. I agree. (...) Yup. I agree. (...) John's response discusses the implied contract between the mother and father. I agree with him that these contracts should be written and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Perhaps I didn't phrase my sentiments clearly. Perhaps I should have said that some actions are inherently just and some are inherently unjust. I believe that Justice is the embodiment of certain moral principles that are objectively true, and (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Rights, Who needs them? (was Re: Abortion...
|
|
(...) Scott, of course, snipped the subordinate clause I put on there, the clause showing a balance of rights so that all rights are respected. As is his wont. Snip away what might disagree with your point or show that the other side is reasonable. (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) There are tons of sentients (not people) who are excluded from the possesion of rights. When this is justified, the arguments are typically based on the fact that they're dumber than us, religious dictate, or something seemingly undefinable (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Wow. And this is probably where the discuss ends, because we in America value *FREEDOM* and *LIBERTY*. It is the basis for our existence, and why further debate is pointless. You welcome government telling you what you can and cannot do. We (...) (24 years ago, 12-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
