charles Wrote:RebelKev Wrote:.....and we are not talking about the woman's body. We are talking about a child. What gives the LP the right to determine what a child is? How about a living being? I mean, I can, if you wish, post the definition up here for you.
Hey a dog is a living thing and having experience with both dogs and humans I can tell you dogs are by far the more nobler of the two and far less disruptive and parasitic and yet no right-winger takes an issue with the thousands of dogs murdered every day in this country just because "there are too many of them". Haven't you seen that new commercial where that brat takes all the candy and blames a dog lying on the floor for it? It's easy to see which of those two is pond scum.
Well I hope the LP candidate gets the ubiquitous canine vote. :rolleyes:
Maybe it's just too fundamental but this small point should be considered: humans and dogs are different!
Yes, that's right, humans get more rights than animals!
Twisting this discussion in such a bizarre direction does this:
It avoids RebelKev's pertinent and telling question of, "what about the body of the unborn baby?"
So Charles, either you thoroughly don't understand what the libertarian party has to say, and you're shoveling out a load of illogical nonsense to cover OR
The LP is far less profound then they advertise.
I vote for both, b/c while the LP has some good ideas, Ayn Rand and all are very sophomoric in their approach. They don't understand the deep issues, nor do they assimilate new information into their philosophy.