Subject:
|
Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:23:58 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
653 times
|
| |
|
|
Maggie,
I don't want to be harsh or insulting, but this basically sounds like
what I have been hearing for years from the pro-choice people, and it hasn't
put a dent in my way of thinking in all those years. I can empathize with
you not wanting strangers in Washington butting in to your affairs.
Everyone can empathize with that, I would think, because strangers in
Washington do butt into many of our affaris far too often. Still your
argument sounds emotional. Nothing wrong with emotions as long as there is
some rationality to accompany them.
So, you say we should agree to disagree. That's fine, I disagree with
people all the time. The best chance of my mind changing is if the people I
disagree with explain to me why they think the way they do (not the way they
feel - because that is usually inexplicable).
In my mind the inalienable rights we have granted to human beings should
apply to ALL human beings, including the very, very young (unborn). I think
these rights should take precedence over someone else's wishes not to be
"hassled by the man." Please tell me a) why your desire not to be troubled
by the powers that be is more important than the right to life of another
human being or b) what evidence you have that a fetus younger than an
arbitrary number (16 weeks?) is not a human being.
I'd like you to prove it to me, or at least show me whatever evidence
works for you. I'd like to agree with you. I'd like to share the majority
opinion for once.
> the environment, and Libertarian regarding my stance on drug policy. • Never
> again will I make the mistake of assuming that all you Libertarians are • cut
> from the same cloth!
Well, that is quite all right, Maggie, I am barely a Libertarian anyway.
One of the fun things about watching their conventions is the incessant
bickering and squabbling. They are still a young party, and therefore there
is room for a variety of views within the party, unlike the tried and true
parties that have an exact predefined, politically calculated answer for
every issue (or non-issue).
> I have snipped most of what you wrote
Likewise.
> And on these issues (particularly the latter) we probably have to agree to
> disagree.
>
> You may or may not know that I have two young children. When they were
babies
I did not know that. It must be nice!
> with such a decision. But I do want it to be MY decision, with input from
my
Who else's decision could it be?
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
 | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) I'll take you up on this one John D. Simple. If the child is born at 16 weeks (4 months), it will NOT be viable. Therefore, I see no problem with it. I think that up until around that point (consider premie babies, they die mostly at under 24 (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Of course, it was emotional. This is an emotionally charged subject. You'll have to pardon me, this was my first time posting to debate and I did not know that one of the rules was that you must leave your emotions at the door. (...) Actually (...) (24 years ago, 13-Nov-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: From Harry Browne
|
| (...) Thank you, John , for a well thought out response to my post. You have swayed my viewpoint, as did Larry's referral to the poll of Libertarians on their opinions on the matter of choice. It was naive of me to assume that because one is a (...) (24 years ago, 13-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
|
|
|
|
