Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 20:30:50 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
818 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal writes:
> > The removal of a non-sentient tissue structure from the body of a woman
> > who doesn't want it inside her is not murder.
>
> Nice term "non-sentient tissue structure".
Not to mention accurate.
> 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.
So non-sentient tissue has rights, too? Do these rights supercede the
rights of the sentient mother? Why? On what grounds?
> I think timing is irrelevant.
Timing is the essence of the matter.
> I think that's why IUDs were such a bad idea-- birth control needs to prevent
> conception from occurring, not dealing with it after the fact. Once an egg
> has been fertilized, it is a genetically potential human being whose rights
> must be protected under law by the State.
Nonsense. You are stating outright that a fetus in the womb of a woman in
prison is being wrongly incarcerated. Likewise, a pregnant woman would not
be able to attend a showing of an NC-17 film, since the fetus is too young
to be admitted.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
