I'm not sure if your post is critical or supportive of mine. The issue of conjoined twins is interesting, though. One twin just killing the other is probably as much suicide as murder since both would eventually die. Thinking about it, though, I contend that this is another example of a conflict of rights between two individuals. The choice is very difficult and would have to be argued in court if there is a disagreement between the twins.
Unfortunately, in the case of a pregnant woman, the child does not have the capability of arguing the case. Also, the mother is at some risk if the child is carried to term. I still contend that the state has no right to force an individual to sacrifice himself, herself in this case, for another. That choice has to be up to the mother. Keep in mind that I'm not arguing about the morality of the mother's choice. I'm just arguing about the proper function of the state. Good example, though. It just illustrates that the issue is NOT easy. It is hard and complex and deserves serious thought and discussion. Ed$ --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Peter" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I guess in cojoined twins, even in cases where medically both are fine (there are many such cases), even years later one can then morally be in the right to kill the other? After all its just amputation because the bigger half I guess is the "mother"?
