>In America, no political conclusion has been reached, only a
>judicial usurpation of the political question. This is judicial
>tyranny, to define away human life without recourse to the
>Constitutional Amendment process, such as was used when slavery
>was abolished. Slavery and abortion are all about the private
>ownership and disposition of human life. The crux of the
>philosophical issues in both cases was and continues to be
>definitional. My alternative is polycentrism, or particularism,
>many jurisdictions trying out many different treatments of the
>issue. The judiciary cannot usurp the legislative role.
>Individuals should have the choice to move to jurisdictions that
>honor life, or that worship death. The type of society that
>evolves in each jurisdiction will provide the incentive or
>disincentive for movement, but I know from moral reasoning from
>first principles that families trying to raise children will be
>drawn towards jurisdictions with an ethic of protecting and
>enhancing life.
No political question or conclusion is necessary, until an
individual is "born" (thus becoming an individual) the constitution
does not apply.
You argue about inconsistency, yet the so called "right to life"
movement is one of the most inconsistent i.e. they support the
death penalty.
Yes, I support the right of choice.
If the so called "right to life " movement is so concerned about
abortion, why haven't they ever tried to support birth control,
thus eliminating most, if not all, abortions?
Brian
Member, Extropy Institute