Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish to fry. Also about a year and a half ago on this list a woman posted the LP link and mentioned that she was joining the party, and two members of this list went bonkers with irrational screams of disapproval. During the early through mid 90's I developed strong libertarian leanings, considering I live in an area where there are few Libertarians. In 1996 I was the first ever in my county to run for any office on the LP ticket. I ran for county commissioner (Dare County, North Carolina) in a three-way race and got 4% of the votes. I made many enemies when I began to expose the public school Ritalin tragedy. I made many enemies when I said all drugs should be legal. To this day many people in Dare County where I still live think I am a looney because of my beliefs on the drug issue. A fellow Libertarian two counties away (Perquimans County) received 20% of the votes in a two-way race where Republicans never run for office. He was a retired naval intelligence officer (CDR). We were the only two LP candidates for county commissioner seats in NE North Carolina. I had a few disagreements by telephone with some of the state LP leaders back then and I am no longer active with the party, but continue my steadfast philosophy of separation of medicine and state, education and state, and, of course, religion and state. I believe in freedom of mind, body and soul. As far as the abortion issue, it is true that the official LP platform is pro-choice but that no government funds should pay for any abortion. It is also true that many Libertarians are pro-life: http://www.l4l.org/ In 2000 one of the LP candidates for the NC House of Representatives was gay, male, and pro-life. I welcome all Libertarians and those of other affiliations to join 12 Step Coercion Watch. Things there have been a little slow, but I am not disappointed at all. We now have 39 members representing several countries. Other tragic events have grabbed the attention of all of us in the last month, but I will stick with this one. I've been on this cause for a long time. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch Tommy http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish to fry. Also about a year and a half ago on this list a woman posted the LP link and mentioned that she was joining the party, and two members of this list went bonkers with irrational screams of disapproval. During the early through mid 90's I developed strong libertarian leanings, considering I live in an area where there are few Libertarians. In 1996 I was the first ever in my county to run for any office on the LP ticket. I ran for county commissioner (Dare County, North Carolina) in a three-way race and got 4% of the votes. I made many enemies when I began to expose the public school Ritalin tragedy. I made many enemies when I said all drugs should be legal. To this day many people in Dare County where I still live think I am a looney because of my beliefs on the drug issue. A fellow Libertarian two counties away (Perquimans County) received 20% of the votes in a two-way race where Republicans never run for office. He was a retired naval intelligence officer (CDR). We were the only two LP candidates for county commissioner seats in NE North Carolina. I had a few disagreements by telephone with some of the state LP leaders back then and I am no longer active with the party, but continue my steadfast philosophy of separation of medicine and state, education and state, and, of course, religion and state. I believe in freedom of mind, body and soul. As far as the abortion issue, it is true that the official LP platform is pro-choice but that no government funds should pay for any abortion. It is also true that many Libertarians are pro-life: http://www.l4l.org/ In 2000 one of the LP candidates for the NC House of Representatives was gay, male, and pro-life. I welcome all Libertarians and those of other affiliations to join 12 Step Coercion Watch. Things there have been a little slow, but I am not disappointed at all. We now have 39 members representing several countries. Other tragic events have grabbed the attention of all of us in the last month, but I will stick with this one. I've been on this cause for a long time. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/12-Step_Coercion_Watch Tommy http://www.angelfire.com/journal/forcedaa/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > The Libertarian Party and its fans have a habit of contradicting themselves and their purported ideals. The support of Prop. 36 (government-forced " treatment " ) is one example. Another is the support of laws which limit women's reproductive freedoms. LP speaks with a forked tongue, I'm afraid. This doesnt surprise me at all. At least as well named the Authoritarian Party imo. A friend of mine has just had a book published exploding the myths abut Stanism in ou society. There is a small Church of Satan, which is essentially libertarian materialististic, which the book reviewer called " Ayn Rand with horns " . Goes rather nicely with the forked tongue! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > The Libertarian Party and its fans have a habit of contradicting themselves and their purported ideals. The support of Prop. 36 (government-forced " treatment " ) is one example. Another is the support of laws which limit women's reproductive freedoms. LP speaks with a forked tongue, I'm afraid. This doesnt surprise me at all. At least as well named the Authoritarian Party imo. A friend of mine has just had a book published exploding the myths abut Stanism in ou society. There is a small Church of Satan, which is essentially libertarian materialististic, which the book reviewer called " Ayn Rand with horns " . Goes rather nicely with the forked tongue! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > The Libertarian Party and its fans have a habit of contradicting themselves and their purported ideals. The support of Prop. 36 (government-forced " treatment " ) is one example. Another is the support of laws which limit women's reproductive freedoms. LP speaks with a forked tongue, I'm afraid. This doesnt surprise me at all. At least as well named the Authoritarian Party imo. A friend of mine has just had a book published exploding the myths abut Stanism in ou society. There is a small Church of Satan, which is essentially libertarian materialististic, which the book reviewer called " Ayn Rand with horns " . Goes rather nicely with the forked tongue! P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory principles? P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory principles? P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory principles? P. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 05:53 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > >Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to >starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory >principles? No, there's not a lot of practical difference with current levels of technology. If the fetus were of an age to be viable, I suppose one could make a case that she doesn't have to leave it inside her but she must extract it alive. If it's a 4-week fetus, then there's really no difference between removing it and just killing it outright. The L4L people do acknowledge this, IIRC. Presumably someone else would adopt the child. There's no shortage of people wanting to adopt healthy infants. Maybe someday fetus transplants will be available. Perhaps some RTL women would volunteer themselves as incubators for unwanted fetuses? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 05:53 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > >Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to >starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory >principles? No, there's not a lot of practical difference with current levels of technology. If the fetus were of an age to be viable, I suppose one could make a case that she doesn't have to leave it inside her but she must extract it alive. If it's a 4-week fetus, then there's really no difference between removing it and just killing it outright. The L4L people do acknowledge this, IIRC. Presumably someone else would adopt the child. There's no shortage of people wanting to adopt healthy infants. Maybe someday fetus transplants will be available. Perhaps some RTL women would volunteer themselves as incubators for unwanted fetuses? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 05:53 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote: > > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > >Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to >starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory >principles? No, there's not a lot of practical difference with current levels of technology. If the fetus were of an age to be viable, I suppose one could make a case that she doesn't have to leave it inside her but she must extract it alive. If it's a 4-week fetus, then there's really no difference between removing it and just killing it outright. The L4L people do acknowledge this, IIRC. Presumably someone else would adopt the child. There's no shortage of people wanting to adopt healthy infants. Maybe someday fetus transplants will be available. Perhaps some RTL women would volunteer themselves as incubators for unwanted fetuses? :-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 05:44 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote: >The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this >list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list >three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform >Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the >impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish >to fry. I think this may be changing, though. The problem for a long time was that most people didn't realize just how insidious and damaging the 12-step cult really is -- it's just a group for mutual support and self-help, right? What could be wrong with that? But now more people, including Libertarians and libertarians, have had direct exposure to the cult. Just about every libertarian who has witnessed the coercion process is appalled by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 05:44 PM 10/9/01 +0000, you wrote: >The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this >list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list >three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform >Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the >impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish >to fry. I think this may be changing, though. The problem for a long time was that most people didn't realize just how insidious and damaging the 12-step cult really is -- it's just a group for mutual support and self-help, right? What could be wrong with that? But now more people, including Libertarians and libertarians, have had direct exposure to the cult. Just about every libertarian who has witnessed the coercion process is appalled by it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 02:15 PM 10/9/01 -0400, you wrote: >I really didn't intend to make this into an abortion issue. I was hoping >we can work together to bring to the attention of the Libertarian Party >our experiences on how our rights and lives were harmed from AA and stepism. Sounds good. What did you have in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 At 02:15 PM 10/9/01 -0400, you wrote: >I really didn't intend to make this into an abortion issue. I was hoping >we can work together to bring to the attention of the Libertarian Party >our experiences on how our rights and lives were harmed from AA and stepism. Sounds good. What did you have in mind? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > >The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this > >list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list > >three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform > >Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the > >impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish > >to fry. > > I think this may be changing, though. The problem for a long time > was that most people didn't realize just how insidious and damaging > the 12-step cult really is -- it's just a group for mutual support and > self-help, right? What could be wrong with that? > > But now more people, including Libertarians and libertarians, have > had direct exposure to the cult. Just about every libertarian who > has witnessed the coercion process is appalled by it. There are indeed bigger fish to fry. Most Libertarians want the drug war ended, now! End the drug war and the policies that went with it, and coerced XA would cease to exist, and that is all the Libertarians need address concerning XA... the rest of it is allowed by our basic freedoms (and our freedom of religion) and isn't nor should it be an issue to Libertarians. I think if anyone has a way of damaging information about XA concisely, then they should pass that information to any available ear, not specificly targetting libertarians (although Libertarians are much more likely to be receptive to such info than Democrats or Republicans). Also, Libertarians have widely varied views on how to deal with crime, much more diverse ideas than the ideas eminating from both of the mainstream parties. However, as XA has been proven to be religious in the lower courts, I seriously doubt you would have to worry about Libertarians wanting XA used as a form of punishment (or rehabilitation) for crimes (or non-crimes). Not only are there bigger fish to fry, it also seems a lot like preaching to the choir. As the LP has proven to be relatively unsuccessful with getting it's views into the mainstream, I would rather hope to effect changes through a more popular political party, the Democrats. If you could change some " real " politician's opinion of XA, then he could use his bully pulpit to change many more people's opinions - far more than any of us laymen could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > >The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this > >list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list > >three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform > >Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the > >impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish > >to fry. > > I think this may be changing, though. The problem for a long time > was that most people didn't realize just how insidious and damaging > the 12-step cult really is -- it's just a group for mutual support and > self-help, right? What could be wrong with that? > > But now more people, including Libertarians and libertarians, have > had direct exposure to the cult. Just about every libertarian who > has witnessed the coercion process is appalled by it. There are indeed bigger fish to fry. Most Libertarians want the drug war ended, now! End the drug war and the policies that went with it, and coerced XA would cease to exist, and that is all the Libertarians need address concerning XA... the rest of it is allowed by our basic freedoms (and our freedom of religion) and isn't nor should it be an issue to Libertarians. I think if anyone has a way of damaging information about XA concisely, then they should pass that information to any available ear, not specificly targetting libertarians (although Libertarians are much more likely to be receptive to such info than Democrats or Republicans). Also, Libertarians have widely varied views on how to deal with crime, much more diverse ideas than the ideas eminating from both of the mainstream parties. However, as XA has been proven to be religious in the lower courts, I seriously doubt you would have to worry about Libertarians wanting XA used as a form of punishment (or rehabilitation) for crimes (or non-crimes). Not only are there bigger fish to fry, it also seems a lot like preaching to the choir. As the LP has proven to be relatively unsuccessful with getting it's views into the mainstream, I would rather hope to effect changes through a more popular political party, the Democrats. If you could change some " real " politician's opinion of XA, then he could use his bully pulpit to change many more people's opinions - far more than any of us laymen could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > >The LP has been an occasional and sometimes divisive topic on this > >list. I recall a few comments by Ken shortly after I joined this list > >three years ago. As I recall, Ken stated that he had tried to inform > >Libertarians about the 12-step horror story and that he said the > >impression he got from many of them was that there were bigger fish > >to fry. > > I think this may be changing, though. The problem for a long time > was that most people didn't realize just how insidious and damaging > the 12-step cult really is -- it's just a group for mutual support and > self-help, right? What could be wrong with that? > > But now more people, including Libertarians and libertarians, have > had direct exposure to the cult. Just about every libertarian who > has witnessed the coercion process is appalled by it. There are indeed bigger fish to fry. Most Libertarians want the drug war ended, now! End the drug war and the policies that went with it, and coerced XA would cease to exist, and that is all the Libertarians need address concerning XA... the rest of it is allowed by our basic freedoms (and our freedom of religion) and isn't nor should it be an issue to Libertarians. I think if anyone has a way of damaging information about XA concisely, then they should pass that information to any available ear, not specificly targetting libertarians (although Libertarians are much more likely to be receptive to such info than Democrats or Republicans). Also, Libertarians have widely varied views on how to deal with crime, much more diverse ideas than the ideas eminating from both of the mainstream parties. However, as XA has been proven to be religious in the lower courts, I seriously doubt you would have to worry about Libertarians wanting XA used as a form of punishment (or rehabilitation) for crimes (or non-crimes). Not only are there bigger fish to fry, it also seems a lot like preaching to the choir. As the LP has proven to be relatively unsuccessful with getting it's views into the mainstream, I would rather hope to effect changes through a more popular political party, the Democrats. If you could change some " real " politician's opinion of XA, then he could use his bully pulpit to change many more people's opinions - far more than any of us laymen could. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > > Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to > starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory > principles? I think the idea is that she has known since before she was capable of having children how they are created and therefore she knew the possible outcome of her actions. While it may be an inconvenience, she does not have the right to end the life that she knowingly and willfully helped create. Its a matter of responsibility, and Libertarians, especially L4L, take perosnal responsibility quite seriously. Personal responsibility is essential in a society where the individuals are expected to be responsible for themselves rather than one in which the government accomodates the people and removes their responsibilities. Those who can not be responsible for themselves (self-controlled and self- restrained are some other applicable words) have no right to impose that responsibility on others (the state) and thus will be reprimanded by the those others (the state) until they learn to be responsible for themselves. Interesting concept, eh? Her being able or unable to remove the fetus from her body is a moot point as her own actions and decisions are the cause of why that fetus is there. Perhaps in the future a woman will have the convenience of being able to have a 2 week old fetus removed from her body without harm, but that really has no bearing on the moral argument that exists today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > > Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to > starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory > principles? I think the idea is that she has known since before she was capable of having children how they are created and therefore she knew the possible outcome of her actions. While it may be an inconvenience, she does not have the right to end the life that she knowingly and willfully helped create. Its a matter of responsibility, and Libertarians, especially L4L, take perosnal responsibility quite seriously. Personal responsibility is essential in a society where the individuals are expected to be responsible for themselves rather than one in which the government accomodates the people and removes their responsibilities. Those who can not be responsible for themselves (self-controlled and self- restrained are some other applicable words) have no right to impose that responsibility on others (the state) and thus will be reprimanded by the those others (the state) until they learn to be responsible for themselves. Interesting concept, eh? Her being able or unable to remove the fetus from her body is a moot point as her own actions and decisions are the cause of why that fetus is there. Perhaps in the future a woman will have the convenience of being able to have a 2 week old fetus removed from her body without harm, but that really has no bearing on the moral argument that exists today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 2001 Report Share Posted October 9, 2001 > > Ah, you've been reading the Libertarians for Life stuff. They're > > not mainstream. The thrust of their argument is that, while > > a woman cannot be compelled to support a fetus, that doesn't > > give the woman the right to kill it as well as extracting it. > > Huh? Is she supposed to extract it without killing it and leave it to > starve to death? How can the possibley resolve these contradictory > principles? I think the idea is that she has known since before she was capable of having children how they are created and therefore she knew the possible outcome of her actions. While it may be an inconvenience, she does not have the right to end the life that she knowingly and willfully helped create. Its a matter of responsibility, and Libertarians, especially L4L, take perosnal responsibility quite seriously. Personal responsibility is essential in a society where the individuals are expected to be responsible for themselves rather than one in which the government accomodates the people and removes their responsibilities. Those who can not be responsible for themselves (self-controlled and self- restrained are some other applicable words) have no right to impose that responsibility on others (the state) and thus will be reprimanded by the those others (the state) until they learn to be responsible for themselves. Interesting concept, eh? Her being able or unable to remove the fetus from her body is a moot point as her own actions and decisions are the cause of why that fetus is there. Perhaps in the future a woman will have the convenience of being able to have a 2 week old fetus removed from her body without harm, but that really has no bearing on the moral argument that exists today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > I was actually asked to run for local office by the libertarian party. I > have a lot of info on them, I guess I should say you. I, of course, agree > with the platform on AA, but I also agree with some of the other consepts. > Eliminating government spending, eliminating welfare and letting privatized > institutions (who have a much better track record) give welfare, and other > such ideas. I would not call myself a " member " just yet, but I am starting > to agree more with the party everyday, especially now. OOC, what do you think of Libertarians on foreign policy? Does our national offense need curtailing? And what about our national defense... doesn't seem to do its job, at least not in the last month or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > I was actually asked to run for local office by the libertarian party. I > have a lot of info on them, I guess I should say you. I, of course, agree > with the platform on AA, but I also agree with some of the other consepts. > Eliminating government spending, eliminating welfare and letting privatized > institutions (who have a much better track record) give welfare, and other > such ideas. I would not call myself a " member " just yet, but I am starting > to agree more with the party everyday, especially now. OOC, what do you think of Libertarians on foreign policy? Does our national offense need curtailing? And what about our national defense... doesn't seem to do its job, at least not in the last month or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > I was actually asked to run for local office by the libertarian party. I > have a lot of info on them, I guess I should say you. I, of course, agree > with the platform on AA, but I also agree with some of the other consepts. > Eliminating government spending, eliminating welfare and letting privatized > institutions (who have a much better track record) give welfare, and other > such ideas. I would not call myself a " member " just yet, but I am starting > to agree more with the party everyday, especially now. OOC, what do you think of Libertarians on foreign policy? Does our national offense need curtailing? And what about our national defense... doesn't seem to do its job, at least not in the last month or so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 2001 Report Share Posted October 10, 2001 > > > > > The Libertarian Party and its fans have a habit of > contradicting > > > themselves and their purported ideals. The support of Prop. 36 > > > (government-forced " treatment " ) is one example. Another is the > support > > > of laws which limit women's reproductive freedoms. LP speaks > with a > > > forked tongue, I'm afraid. > > > > > > I've never heard of any Libertarian party supporting a law which > > limits anyone's reproductive freedom. What are you referring to? > > > > > > > > --------------------- > > I've seen several Libertarian articles on Roe v. Wade in which > they slam the decision, and declare that in keeping with Libertarian > principles, there should be no laws which infringe on " the right of > an unborn person to reside in its mother's uterus " or which allow > women to " kill persons who happen to be pre-born " . Accordingly, they > oppose all measures which have been passed to ensure women's right to > access to abortion services (including access to the RU486 medication > which expels a blastocyst days after fertilization), and support > those measures which limit such access. > > I'll post a link to such articles, if you'd like. I'd like to read those articles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.