Dear Everyone;
If a candidate is anti-abortion just say: I am anti-abortion. Do not attempt to qualify the statement in any manner. If a candidate is pro-abortion just say so without any qualifiers.
Qualifiers like teaching teens safe sex or helping couples put an unwanted child up for adoption leave out the multitude of circumstances under which pregnancies can occur. The presumption that a " couple " is involved is presumptive, it is presumptive that only teens need to know about safe sex. This leaves out the proverbial one-night stand without safe sex. It leaves out the woman who gets raped and gets pregnant. It leaves out the situation where conception occurs and it is medically determined the foetus has a genetic abnormality. And very soon after birth will die. Or as was previously mentioned the foetus where the brain stem does not develop or worse the brain develops but the skull doesn't leaving the brain exposed.
Having a couple put an unwanted baby up for adoption or having a woman who was raped and became pregnant carry the child for nine months is a dubious process at best. It penalizes the woman who became pregnant. Not to mention the various dangers which a woman faces from carrying for nine months and child birth.
Because there will be no ideal Libertarian "State" or "City" leave it at: I am for or against abortion.
Ron Getty
"Christopher R. Maden" <crism@...> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Still, I would like to see the states' rights issue be brought more into
the discussion. I think it's appropriate for communities to establish
their own policies. Just like the Free State Project, I'd like for those
who oppose abortion to be able to have a place where there values could be
established for the community and flourish just like for those who want
access to abortion.
I have trouble with that concept, because it can be extended ad absurdum to
allowing states to adopt Shari'a, slavery, or trial by combat. I think it
is reasonable and libertarian for the federal government to forbid states
to oppress their citizens. If you look at the United States as a club to
which the states belong, they agree to abide by its terms (the
Constitution) as a condition of membership, and I really don't have a
problem with the 14th amendment as part of those terms.
I think we are all better served by dodging the question, and working for a
society in which it's a non-issue.
~Chris
- --
"Freedom is a heavy load, a great and strange burden for the spirit
to undertake. It is not easy." - Ursula K. LeGuin
Political gadfly and freelance nerd: <URL: http://crism.maden.org/ >
PGP Fingerprint: BBA6 4085 DED0 E176 D6D4 5DFC AC52 F825 AFEC 58DA
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
lpsf-discuss-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.