Well, that's an option. Let's see how well it holds up. A woman gives birth to a child. The woman does not want to be burdened with raising the child for 18 years and does not want to be stigmatized by her relatives and acquaintences. She dumps the child in a trash bin where it perishes. Should the government get involved? How? Why?
A woman carries a fetus almost to full term and decides that she has made a mistake. She has the child aborted and killed after it is born. Should the government get involved? How? Why? A woman carries a fetus almost to full term and decides that she has made a mistake. She has the child killed in utero and aborted. Should the government get involved? How? Why? A woman carries a fetus almost to 6 months and decides that she has made a mistake. She has the child aborted and killed after it is born. Should the government get involved? How? Why? A woman carries a fetus almost to 6 months and decides that she has made a mistake. She has the child killed in utero and aborted. Should the government get involved? How? Why? What is the difference in these cases? Why does this difference change the involvement of the government? Ed$ --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "J R" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How about: Just keep the government out of it altogether????????? > > --- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Edwin J. Pole II" <ejpoleii@> > wrote: > > > > 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" <pyotr@> 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"? > > >
