From: Michael S. Lorrey (retroman@together.net)
Date: Thu Jan 14 1999 - 09:11:27 MST
Samael wrote:
> Most people I know eat meat (my Girlfriend doesn't, but apart from that I
> think everyone know does), and all of them are liberal (well, certianly by
> your definition - all fo them are in favour of government, anyway).
Yes, another example is the anti-hunting, pro-meat eating hypocracy. I have much
more respect for vegetarians than for such hyporites....
> Oh, and very few people are in favour of abortion, all though many people
> are in favour of people being allowed a choice. Enforcing abortion isn't
> likely to be very popular.
I'm also pro-choice, not because I don't think that the fetus is a living
creature, I think it is, but by all international norms, a human being must be a
citizen of either a country or a visitor from a UN Human Rights Treaty signatory
country, or from a country has diplomatic relations with the country we are
talking about to be considered to have rights. Under no national or
international law is citizenship conferred on an individual according to the
nation in which the individual was conceived in. They all make birth the
condition of citizenship. Thus the unborn have no rights under any accepted
national or international convention. Here in the US, under the 9th and 10th
amendments, any rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights were to
remain in the hands of the people, or in the states as delegated by the people.
So here, the various states can pass laws or state constitutional amendments
which regulate abortion and remain entirely constitutional on all levels. It is
their right to do so, and the right of people in the states to put such
amendments up to state referendums.
If a state wishes to pass an amendment putting the rights of the unborn ahead of
the rights of the mother, then so be it.
Mike Lorrey
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:02:49 MST