Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 18:56:45 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
739 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:
> 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 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.
> > The removal of a non-sentient tissue structure from the body of a woman
> > who doesn't want it inside her is not murder.
>
> Is the fact that it is non-sentient make it non-human? And what do you
> believe about euthanasia for so-called 'vegetables' hooked up to machines?
> They aren't sentient either, but they're clearly human. Does it line up?
Let me be clear--the fact that it is non-sentient does *not* make it
non-human, but it *does* make it non-life (or, non-living in a significant
way). For that matter, the guy who died in a car accident yesterday is
still human, too, even though he's non-living. That said, I absolutely
believe in euthanasia for so-called 'vegetables' if brain function has
indeed ceased. Sentient life, at that point, has ended.
> Lots of people on the pro-choice side try to excuse the abortion issue as a
> religious issue. Though many faiths are against abortion, its not purely a
> religious issue, its a human rights issue.
In my view, it's only a human rights issue for the embryo after the embryo
achieves life a la brain activity. Prior to that time, it's a choice issue
for the woman carrying it. Religion, for me, is irrelevant in this argument.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
