Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!mcgill-vision!quiche!utility
From: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Newsgroups: alt.individualism
Subject: Re: Libertarians(?) For Life at Jan 22 March On Washington
Keywords: Roe. V. Wade Anniversary
Message-ID: <1998@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca>
Date: 18 Jan 90 04:53:33 GMT
References: <7352@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <3168@ge-dab.GE.COM>
Reply-To: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca (Ronald BODKIN)
Distribution: na
Organization: SOCS, McGill University, Montreal, Canada
Lines: 18

In article <3168@ge-dab.GE.COM> byrnes@sunwhere1.UUCP (Arthur Byrnes) writes:
>This is damaging to the Libertarian movement, since the march is in
>support of those who want LAWS MADE, not in support of the girl who
>doesn't want to have an abortion.
	I think the point is this -- the individual in question believes that
a fetus has rights.  I don't agree, but I'm not exactly the same in my
view of rights -- I don't see why a vegetable should have rights, or
even a severely retarded person.  Of course this gets into a new
round of argument, but I don't see why you feel the need to utterly
bust on this individual for "making a law", since they don't regard this
issue as the same as someone doing something stupid and harmful to themself.
In the end, I think the person should explain why she considers fetus'
to have rights, maybe she can untangle herself -- but I think alot of
people here have somewhat tangled notions of human rights and more
particularily have inherited Rand's mystic view of these(!)
		Ron
p.s. It should be interesting to hear why a fetus is to beaccorded
human rights without "God made its soul" as the reason.