No No No No No If you want to be a slave of the State, go right ahead.
--- In Libertarian@yahoogroups.com, "Edwin J. Pole II" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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" <vjklander@> 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"? > > > > > >
