 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I like this quote from the page: The Libertarian Party should be explicitly, and proudly, pro-life. As Libertarians, we are the party of individual freedom and responsibility. Intelligent Libertarians know that sex is supposed to result in (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) With all due respect to Kyle, whose credentials on the subject of sex's "purpose" I have yet to read, this quote proposes a rather arbitrary view. Who is Kyle to say what "sex is supposed to result" in? Sex is supposed to result in sex, and (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Dave!: I'm curious as to what your presuppostions are in this matter (Curious - not Attacking.) From a purely evolutionary perspective, sex is meant to result in pregnancey and thus the transfer of genetic material to insure species survival. (...) (24 years ago, 10-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance?
|
|
(...) Just as a note, in case anyone didn't go look at the ref, this was an unscientific poll, self selected participants, and the quotes were, I suspect, selected to show the diversity of opinions on the issue. Tim chose to pick one quote that he (...) (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)
|
| |
| | 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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
|
|
(...) 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)
|
| |
| | 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: 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: 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: 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
|
|
(...) Yup. (...) So? This does have, and should have, NOTHING to do with our law. From the same reasoning, we evolved for the sole 'purpose' of concentrating resources most effectively. As Neal Stephenson has put it, we are the "ultimate badass." So (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) In general, yes. (...) It has certainly been known to happen. (...) Yes! (...) Why not? It seems rather obvious to me. If not, then what guiding force do you attribute it to? (...) There is no such thing as natural purpose. Intelligences are (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Right. And even from an evolutionary argument perspective, to argue that sex is for procreation and procreation only, is to miss how subtle evolution actually is. Humans, and many other higher animals as well, have sex a lot more than is (...) (24 years ago, 11-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) So, knowing that there is no 100% sure method other than vastectomy (sp?) or its equivalent for women, then either lay down on operation table, or "if you don't want to have child, do not make sex ever" right? sorry Tim but: Hehehehehehehehe. (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) How about thinking about how many child do you want for your entire life, and just compare it with the number of times you supposed to make sex with your partner..:-) Selçuk (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Selçuk Göre" <ssgore@superonline.com> wrote in message news:3A0FF811.1D604F...ine.com... (...) There are known methods of having sex and not having it result in pregnancy which can be used. If you don't want to have a child, I would say don't allow (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I have found it uncommon for Republicans to advocate anal sex. But remember it's not 100% in a heterosexual couple. (...) You are nothing but a group of cells. (...) Not in the context of our government. Maybe not ever. (...) They traumatize (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zBp9.KGB@lugnet.com... (...) pregnancy (...) remember (...) I was not advocating anal sex. I was referring to contraceptives, condoms, and other forms of protection. I do not advocate (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Oh, I thought you meant a way that was sure to avoid conception. The pill and other female-based chemical methods are pretty reliable. The condom is less so, but still pretty good. From there it's down hill. I'm not actually sure where anal (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zEJ9.74n@lugnet.com... (...) and (...) less (...) sure (...) aren't (...) Yep. (...) Personal and moral reasons. -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) It fits in right....ummmmm....no further comment. (...) I must resist....I must resist... I can't resist. Wouldn't it be near the bottom? :-) Bruce (pushing the boundries of good taste) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Bruce Schlickbernd" <corsair@schlickbernd.org> wrote in message news:G3zFwF.BMz@lugnet.com... (...) LOL!! (good thing this wasn't xposted to fun) ;-) -- Tim Courtney - tim@zacktron.com (URL) - Centralized LDraw Resources (URL) - Zacktron Alliance (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I find this whole topic to be a big pain in the... never mind. 8^) Dave! (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) *I* wouldn't know. ;-) Bruce (OOooooo, more cheap shots!) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) [snip] (...) But my point was that none of those methods are 100% which is what it seemed you were suggesting. That is, it seemed you were simply saying that there were some ways to have sex without having a baby. (...) OK, this could be (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Geez! You kids are bad. These posts belong in .pun, don't they? Chris (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"Christopher Weeks" <clweeks@eclipse.net> wrote in message news:G3zJ1o.MKB@lugnet.com... (...) as (...) part (...) act (...) I find it asthetically unpleasing, heterosexual or homosexual, at this point in my life. But, I prefer not to be examined to (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) IMO, an explicit discussion of sexual practices, be they hetero or homosexual might not be in order, considering that Lugnet is a "family forum" and kids might stumble in here. Granted, we might not want young minds to have to tackle the (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
"James Simpson" <jsimpson@rice.edu> wrote in message news:G3zJow.1ux@lugnet.com... (...) might (...) instead (...) is a (...) homosexual (...) kids (...) tackle (...) Agreed. I don't particularly want to engage in that discussion, hence I summarized (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) My, my, aren't we anal retentive. Has our humor bottomed out? Or will this continue to be the butt of more jokes? Perhaps we are off-target and the jests are not making a hole-in-one? All these questions and the answer is....? Alimentary, my (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Gad!!! I hadn't thought of that....Whew....I just read the Terms of Use Agreement, and I think I'm on safe ground even if it's a bit risque. I'll go ahead and let it drop for the sake of the kiddies who are made uncomfortable. (...) But I want (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) As I said in my first pharagraph, there is no methods with 100% relaibility, even when used in combination. Other than some surgical operations of course. So if you don't want to be cut, there is always a possibility to have a babe as a result (...) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) I think that should have been "and the answer is:" You should have used a colon. (...) I'm afraid I'll need a little time to digest that last bit. Dave! FUT off-topic.pun (at last) (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) For both comedic timing and consistency in using question marks, no. And let's not even bring up a semi-colon: I don't like half-assed punctuation. (...) To say nothing of the tapeworm. :-0 Bruce (24 years ago, 14-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.pun)
|
| |
| | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
|
(...) Most of those forms of protection aren't very reliable. When dealing with the enormous responsibility of having a child, even 99% effectiveness doesn't cut it. Sterilization is the only TRUE 100% effective contraceptive (assuming followup (...) (24 years ago, 24-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
