Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Roscoe
and they go on to amplify "dispose of" in relation to euthenasia etc. correct. But where do they claim the such disposal can be made to violate what in the previous paragraph they refer to as a prohibition? I don't get it.
179 posted on 03/27/2002 12:36:48 PM PST by KC Burke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies ]


To: KC Burke
As OWK and others have suggested, the initial voluntary act would render the future subjugation and captivity of the slave voluntary as well. That's how indentured servitude worked prior to our 13th Amendment.

You have their platform statement, you've seen their attempts at justification in this thread.

182 posted on 03/27/2002 12:43:50 PM PST by Roscoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

To: KC Burke
All rights are inextricably linked with property rights. Such rights as the freedom from involuntary servitude as well as the freedom of speech and the freedom of press are based on self-ownership. Our bodies are our property every bit as much as is justly acquired land or material objects.

We further hold that the owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others.

and they go on to amplify "dispose of" in relation to euthenasia etc. correct.
But where do they claim the such disposal can be made to violate what in the previous paragraph they refer to as a prohibition? I don't get it.

You lost me here. What prohibition?

I suspect that once again, some concept is being taken out of overall context, and misunderstood.

192 posted on 03/27/2002 1:14:10 PM PST by tpaine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson