For the logic impaired...

[Violet]

To me, a person exists from conception... it's how I've come to understand it. You define it differently: after fetus.

The new human is existant from conception. It is never a human 'somewhere along the line'. The information that makes it into the human being is all right there in the fertilised egg. Mum does nothing more than facilitate it's development: her body feeds it and provides a host environment that helps it to develop.

Humanity is irrelevant... once it develops personality more advanced than other persons we deem simple enough to cull for our food: then I'll consider with the current value of personhood, rather than the vague potential of personhood which it presents as a fetus.

But y'know... nobody ever takes me seriously. I can see the headlines now: Woman assassinates entire US congress; says she was tired of not being taken seriously.

---

No, I oppose the killing of the individual who cannot express their rights. The issue of abortion is a tough one, because there are two individuals involved, and the rights of each one needs to be heard since they come into conflict (the right of the mother to control her womb versus the right to life of the baby).

There are plenty of Libertarians who oppose abortion, and plenty who do not. It's not an issue that is as obvious to Libertarian principles as others.

I take it individuality is suddenly a human-only characteristic, and that humans have some sort of inherent rights? I should hope not, since parallels to other social issues could be drawn (race, votes for women, something about hookers serving cheeseburgers in unrelated hot-dog syrup).

Or are you a vegetarian?

No. Each case is different. Whilst I would rather not see an innocent life put to death, there are acceptable instances where abortion doesn't violate Libertarian principles of non-aggression. For instance, when the baby is killing / hurting the mother, or when that baby is the product of a non-aggression violation (i.e. rape).

Non-aggression seems like a weak marketing stance... why is non-aggression a Libertarian principle? Are there no Libertarians who do not subscribe to such a principle?

Why see any lives put to death, guilty (of what?) or not? Why not put every life to death that does not satisfy your goals?

I do not, however, think abortion should be legal for people who have consensual sex and become pregnant. I'm not saying they have to keep the baby; but they do not have the right to end its life just because they don't want it.

And why not? Accidents happen, people are stupid, and holidays are fantastic for conning the shit out of one's fellows... and I know that I would every time claim that I had been raped by a stranger in an alley if such a law were to come into play and I was pregnant with unwanted fruit.

Failing that... and people who are greatly opposed to the idea *will* find a way... and people opposed but concerned greatly for their health *will* be miserable hosts, with a good chance to be emotionally wrecked. Such laws seem only to succeed in endangering the infected's, er... expecting mother's life. Is that not seeing innocent (the fuck does that mean?) lives put to death? Or are we obsessing over intent, and not result, here?

---

Oh yes it is (/ends argument)

Well then, my heart is also an individual. And my liver. And my stomach. And some random tissues in my neck too. Let's not forget my penis: that's certainly an individual, even a paragon of its kind!

---

If it can't think our feel it isn't a being you mean? It would never have developed into a unique person, and therefore never have the right to be considered an individual?

Do you, by chance, ever eat chicken, cow, fish, or spaghetti?

STOP THE MADNESS!!!!! SAVE THE PASTA!!!!!!!!! WHO'S WITH ME?!!!!?!?!!!!

---

Life is a gift, not a burden.

Dunno man... seems pretty heavy. Not sure if can carry.

* Violet doesn't even lift.

---

Oh, and 100% FREE OF DEFECTS...

So it'll be JUST LIKE ME!

I can't wait for my cousins to arrive ^_^