MODERATOR'S NOTE: Dan's post was doing just fine until the personal attack at the end. Please don't engage in personal attacks on this forum, as it does cheapen the discussion. Everyone here is capable of disagreeing with someone without calling them an "idiot". ---Sasan
----------------------------------------------------------- I would also think that his response should be less arrogant. Also if I were on the fence thinking about a candidate and whether or not to vote for him and he sent me a message basically calling my children protoplasm before they were born I would most likely not vote for him. If I were pro choice he would have ran me off quick, and contrary to what me may think we do need pro lifers voting for us. The pro choice position is OK but it should be explained with more of a Ruwartian flair. This Frank guy ran this person over with his response. I'm worried Frank is an idiot that will never get any votes. DC 4 Liberty ----- Original Message ----- From: Edwin J. Pole II To: Libertarian@yahoogroups.com Sent: Monday, August 25, 2008 10:28 PM Subject: [Libertarian] Re: Why I am Pro-Choice: Support Woman's Right to Abortion A few comments. Using Rand as a sole source for a position of this nature is inadequate.She was hardly an expert on child/fetal development and motherhood. If fact, she was pretty damn weak in the whole area of personal relationships. Your answers and statements should be more definitive. Words like "probably" and "maybe" are weak. It might be informative for you to explain how the passage of a fetus through the birth canal suddenly endows it with rights and changes "potential" to "actual." What about Caesarian section? Given all that we know about fetal development and activity in humans and other creatures, if you believe in natural rights, the statement that an unborn child is only potentially human and has no rights fails Occam's razor. If I were to run for office again I would explain that the question of abortion as it relates to the state can also rest on a conflict of rights between a mother and a child. Carrying a child to term certainly inflicts hazards on a woman. It must be up to the woman to decide how much hazard she is willing to bear. It cannot be up to the State. It is not valid, however, to pretend that abortion is anything less than killing a human being. It may enable one to ignore the moral and ethical questions associated with such a decision but that does not mean they don't exist. I would also emphasize the hypocrisy of the religious right when it comes to adoption and payment to the mother to bear the hazard of birth. Why shouldn't a woman be reimbursed for the risk? At the same time, I would point out that the left is just as hypocritical in many respects. How many of them, for example, would assert the right of a man to the same reproductive freedom as a woman and not have to pay support for an unwanted child? There are many aspects to the abortion question. It is not something that truly lends itself to easy answers. Nothing that involves human life, and especially children, is easy. One must carefully think about the details of the problem and particularly separate issues of politics and law from morality and ethics. To ignore this is to take shallow positions that are untenable in the face of facts and logic. Ed$ --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, Franklin Perez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hello Martin: > > My name is Franklin Perez, and I am running in year 2008 for the > Florida State House of Representatives (District 33) with a Libertarian > platform. You may view information about my campaign by going to the http://www.geocities.com/fperez1776 hyperlink. > > We met at the "Breakfast with the Candidates" Event this past Friday (8/22/08). You asked me what my position was on abortion, and I answered I was pro-choice. You stated you were pro-life and against abortion because you felt it was murder. > > I promised I would send you an e-mail explaining why I was pro-choice. > > As indicated in my campaign platform at the http://www.geocities.com/fperez_2008/index_eng.html > hyperlink: I am a Pro-Choice candidate. I believe in a Woman's Right to > Abortion as per the Roe vs. Wade Supreme Court decision. > > I believe in the Roe vs. Wade United States Supreme Court decision that states a woman has a right to abortion on the first and second trimesters of pregnancy. > > The reasons why I am a pro-choice candidate are as > follows: > · > "An > embryo has no rights. Rights do not pertain to a potential, only > to an actual being. A child cannot acquire any rights until it is born. > The living take precedence over the not-yet-living (or the unborn)." [1] > · > "Abortion > is a moral right - which should be left to the sole discretion of the woman > involved; morally, nothing other then her wish in the matter is to be > considered. Who can conceivably have the right to dictate to her what > disposition she is to make of the functions of her own body?" [1] > · > "Never > mind the vicious nonsense of claiming that an embryo has a `right to life.' A > piece of protoplasm has no rights - and no life in the human sense of the > term.. To equate a potential with an actual, is vicious; to > advocate the sacrifice of the latter to the former, is unspeakable.. Observe > that by ascribing rights to the unborn, i.e., the nonliving, the > anti-abortionists obliterate the rights of the living: the right of young > people to set the course of their own lives. The task of raising a child is a > tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly > or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm > animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to > oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone's > benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding > happiness and fulfillment to living human beings." [1] > If elected to the Florida State House of > Representatives (District 33), I shall publicly support and/or introduce the > following type of pro-abortion legislation: > · Codifying Roe. v. Wade > into law. (Note: This is especially important considering that one day the > United States Supreme Court may overturn Roe v. Wade.) > · Access > to affordable family planning services via sensible free market and > deregulation reforms. > · Teaching of comprehensive, age-appropriate, > medically-accurate sex education, including information about both abstinence > and contraception, in public schools. > · Eliminating state funds for crisis pregnancy > centers or other organizations providing medically-inaccurate or false > information about pregnancy to women and that do not provide women with all of > their reproductive options, including adoption, carrying a pregnancy to term, > and abortion. > · > Support the > right of a woman and her physician to determine the abortion method that > protects her health. > > FOOTNOTES > > [1] Page 1 of the book entitled "The Ayn Rand Lexicon; Objectivism from A > to Z". > > You may view more details about my pro-choice position by going to the http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SemCountyLibs/message/1726 hyperlink. It contains my answers to a questionnaire that Planned Parenthood sent me. > > I hope this clarifies my position. > > If there are any other issues of interest you would like to discuss with me, please let me know. > > Sincerely, > > Franklin Perez (No Party Affiliation) > > Florida State House Candidate (District 33) - Year 2008 > Libertarian and Independent! Not Beholden to Party Politics! > http://www.geocities.com/fperez1776 > > (407) 694-7805 > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
