[MHGinTN]

You wrote, "The difficulty in this approach is determining when an action does NOT hurt others, and is thus a protected liberty, and when it DOES hurt others and is thus a proscribed 'license'."

The way that was dealt with--in order to grant license to kill the unborn--in 1973 was to sweep aside the notion that the unborn are individual human beings and thus persons worthy of protection from having their LIFE taken from them without due process of law. Oh, to be sure, no one wrote such a truth in the Roe v Wade ruling ... it was the underlying assumption that a woman's liberty trumped the LIFE of a non-person.

[Cultural Jihad]

it was the underlying assumption that a woman's liberty trumped the LIFE of a non-person.

As long as the dismembership of the helpless human baby occurs behind hallowed closed doors, that is.

[tpaine]

it was the underlying assumption that a woman's liberty trumped the LIFE of a non-person
-mhg-

Legally, under our constitution, that is correct, - until 'viablity' there is no legally separate person.

You have a better solution to the legal dilemma? - Lets see it.

[sd-joe]

>> "The way that was dealt with--in order to grant license to kill the unborn--in 1973 was to sweep aside the notion that the unborn are individual human beings and thus persons worthy of protection"

And of course that was the way slavery was justified, that slaves were not really fully recognized human beings.

A free society depends on the active participation of the normal, sane, members of the society. The only way either of these "notions" could exist is if a large part of the society either agrees with the idea or has dropped out of participation in the process.

[jimt]

The way that was dealt with--in order to grant license to kill the unborn--in 1973 was to sweep aside the notion that the unborn are individual human beings and thus persons worthy of protection from having their LIFE taken from them without due process of law. Oh, to be sure, no one wrote such a truth in the Roe v Wade ruling ... it was the underlying assumption that a woman's liberty trumped the LIFE of a non-person.

Actually, and more to this (Lawrence) point, I think it was that a woman's right to privacy trumped the right to life of the unborn, which is obviously idiocy of the first water. And you're right - they had to declare the unborn "non-persons" to get away with it, which is also clearly sophistry.

In Lawrence, however, privacy is raised legitimately. No one's rights are violated by what adult homosexuals do in privacy. This is in stark contrast to Roe, where someone's right to life itself is being violated.