To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / 7156
7155  |  7157
Subject: 
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.off-topic.debate
Date: 
Fri, 10 Nov 2000 21:49:30 GMT
Viewed: 
825 times
  
John Neal wrote:

Dave Schuler wrote:

In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tim Courtney writes:

I believe abortion is murder, and should be charged as such in the criminal
court system.

  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".  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 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 the society depicted in the short story, it was illegal to
use contraceptives because they denied the egg and sperm the potential
of creating life (never mind that it was known that a pregnancy would
probably kill the woman). In fact, I want to say that I remember that
the society was even moving towards a state where not having sex at all
was considered a denial of the potential.

Now that would seem to be a ridiculous extreme (though I'm not
absolutely sure that such hasn't been called for, certainly there are
religions which preach that use of contraceptives is to deny god's
will). I think it is interesting to examine extreme cases though.
Sometimes the extreme case will show out the flaw in an argument (this
particular short story certainly showed out that if one bought those
arguments, then one accepted that the potential of future life was more
important than the potential of existing life, one needs to then ask if
that is what one really intends).

--
Frank Filz

-----------------------------
Work: mailto:ffilz@us.ibm.com (business only please)
Home: mailto:ffilz@mindspring.com



Message has 1 Reply:
  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)

Message is in Reply To:
  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)

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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR