On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 22:24:20 -0400, Tom Del Rosso wrote:
"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message

I'm ****ed off about Da Gubmint paying for _ANYTHING_, since the only
money it has has been stolen from our paychecks.

The only question that needs to be answered in the abortion issue is,
"Whose property are you and your organs?"

In fact, since antichoice is a religious thing, Da Gubmint is
expressly prohibited from making any law enforcing it.

Not religious for me. I'm an atheist, and a clump of cells, like you. It's
illegal after 28 weeks, but that's not religious. I just don't want
unelected courts making legislation. Every country has some kind of
restrictions, but this is the only democracy where it's decided by an
unelected court, and that's why the debate has been so acrimonious. It
would have been a lot easier on the country if it was allowed to develop
democratically in each state.

An issue like this needs concensus, and we don't have one nationally. We
have one consensus in Utah and another in Vermont, so let the people decide
their laws. So what if a few states have stiff restrictions? They'll take
a bus to the next state over.

Well, here in the good ol' USA, we have this thing called a Constitution.

----------excerpt---------
AMENDMENT XIV
Passed by Congress June 13, 1866. Ratified July 9, 1868.
Note: Article I, section 2, of the Constitution was modified by section 2 of the 14th amendment.
Section 1.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State
wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
....
----------/excerpt---------

It's right there, in black and white. "All persons born..."

Ergo, if it's not born, it's not a person, and is still the property
of the one who is providing every single atom of its substance, i.e.,
its creator. (except for half a cell's worth of DNA from the
spermdonor.)

Now, if the woman who is creating this thing wishes to endow it with
"rights", that's her prerogative, as it is her property until "the
miracle of childbirth", when it becomes a separate person, with
all of the rights of every other born person.

The only way to grant "rights" to an unborn is to strip its existing,
born owner of her unaliensble, God-given rights to life, liberty and
property.

Thanks,
Rich