Skip to comments.
Abortion and Rights: Applying Libertarian Principles Correctly
Libertarians for Life ^
| Doris Gordon
Posted on 11/13/2001 12:12:13 PM PST by fod
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
To: Leesylvanian
You "get it"
Thanks for the input, and keep up the good fight.
41
posted on
11/16/2001 1:05:15 PM PST
by
fod
Comment #42 Removed by Moderator
To: cdwright
pathetic that you feel a need to push away those that agree with you on this issue...
43
posted on
11/16/2001 1:05:26 PM PST
by
fod
To: fod
Pro-Life Libertarian Bump!
To: fod
Was not insinuating that there was, I was simply making the statement that no one has the right to kill a baby trapped in the womb with no place to run and no way to defend him or herself.
45
posted on
11/16/2001 1:05:31 PM PST
by
Alas
To: Alas
Of course not. There's not a more fundamental right then the right to live.
To: NC_Libertarian
and a bump back at ya
47
posted on
11/16/2001 1:06:20 PM PST
by
fod
To: fod
the pregnant woman is not a mere bystander who may choose to save or not save an endangered person. Since she is a cause of the child's predicament, then presumably the woman does have a duty to protect her child from harm. I have made this argument in another forum, and have lately been stumped by the following rebuttal: If X voluntarily commits an act that results in harm to Y, X may have an obligation toward Y---but only the obligation to restore Y to the status Y had before X's act. In the case of woman X's sex act leading to zygote/embryo/fetus Y's need for maternal bodily resources, Y's status before X's act was nonexistence; so at most the pregnant woman owes the z/e/f a return to nonexistence, which abortion provides.
Anybody have a counterargument?
48
posted on
11/16/2001 1:09:56 PM PST
by
MrLeRoy
Comment #49 Removed by Moderator
Comment #50 Removed by Moderator
To: Leesylvanian
Sadly, many or most Americans have no idea about what constitutes a right. Driving a car and getting on an airplane are privileges granted by the state. It would appear that you have some problem with the concept too...
To: cdwright
well, good luck finding a political org that is a theology
52
posted on
11/16/2001 1:11:15 PM PST
by
fod
To: MrLeRoy
How about this. That`s bullsh*t!
53
posted on
11/16/2001 1:11:25 PM PST
by
Slapper
Comment #54 Removed by Moderator
To: cdwright
Even if it's not a theology how does that fact proscribe the secularists involved from postulating theories on the morality of abortion?
To: fod
personal bump
56
posted on
11/16/2001 1:12:51 PM PST
by
Tribune7
Comment #57 Removed by Moderator
Comment #58 Removed by Moderator
Comment #59 Removed by Moderator
To: cdwright
The points you made are well stated, and well taken, but don't you think it is possible to postulate moral behavior predicated upon secular principles that seek to cultivate the better part of man? Is the moral imperative a concomitant only to the belief in God?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80, 81-99 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson