 | | Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne —James Simpson
| | | | (...) 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? (Re: From Harry Browne —Dave Schuler
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Christopher L. Weeks
| | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
| | | | | (...) 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)
| | | | | | |
