Although the federal judiciary makes abortion
legal, many people who are "pro-life" resist abolishing
the federal government because they see this as aiding the
"pro-choice" forces. They believe "the
government" is necessary to prevent abortions by threatening
violence against those who procure or deliver them.
Abolishing the institutionalization of violence which we call
"the government" is obviously a very
"pro-choice" position. But The
Christmas
Conspiracy! is pro-life.
This page explains the manufactured conflict between
"pro-life" and "pro-choice."
The
Christmas
Conspiracy!
is "Pro-Life"
- There is something tragically wrong when a nation's
mothers kill their own babies a million times a year;
four thousand babies are killed every day in America.
- Polls indicate Americans oppose 90% of all abortions
which take place.
- It is never
necessary to intentionally kill a baby in order to save
the life of a mother. Never.
- Many pro-abortionists say that abortion should be
"safe,
legal, and rare." Why should the
exercise of a "constitutional right" be
"rare?" This is like a government censor
saying freedom of the press should be
"rare," or a pro-lynching KKK member saying trials
by jury should be "rare." Abortions
should be rare because they are murder.
|
The
Christmas
Conspiracy!
is "Pro-Choice"
- Government force -- fines, imprisonment,
or execution -- is
not the solution to abortion.
- If a pregnant woman is pressured to get an abortion
by her abusive so-called "boyfriend," by her
status-conscious parents, and by a greedy abortionist,
she should not then be locked up in prison with a
carjacker and a prostitute.
- The government says it is
"unconstitutional" to teach students that
human beings are created in the image of God, and that
God says not to kill them. Threatening such
mal-educated students with jail will not cause them to
respect life.
- Here's how to stop
abortion without raising taxes to support an army
of anti-abortion "jackbooted thugs."
|
The 108th Congress should:
From their home page:
The
Libertarian Case Against Abortion
To
explain and defend our case, LFL argues that:
- Human
offspring are human beings, persons from
fertilization.
- Abortion
is homicide -- the killing of one person by another.
- There
is never a right to kill an innocent person.
Prenatally, we are all innocent persons.
- A
prenatal child has the right to be in the mother's
body. Parents have no right to evict their children
from the crib or from the womb and let them die.
Instead both parents, the father as well as the
mother, owe them support and protection from harm.
- No
government, nor any individual, has a just power to
legally depersonify any one of us, born or preborn.
- The
proper purpose of the law is to side with the
innocent, not against them.
For
details, please read LFL's
literature. |
"Her Body"
Proponents of abortion say "it's my body."
Life -- the body of a genetically distinct individual -- begins
at conception. A mother has no more of a right to kill the
life that's nursing in "her
body" than she does to kill a life that's nursing on
"her body."
Libertarian Perspectives:
- Bringing
Back Liberty, Harry Browne, June 12, 2001
- Freedom
from Moral Posturing (from The Great Libertarian Offer)
- Libertarian
Stand on Abortion, the, Harry Browne, December 21, 1998
- Truth
about the Republican & Democratic Parties, The, Harry
Browne, March 23, 1999
"Preserving the life of the
mother"
Abortion is never necessary to "preserve
the life of the mother."
If a pregnancy is not developing normally and the mother's
life is in imminent danger, then the baby's life is also in
danger; if the mother dies, so will the baby. If the baby must be
removed from its present location to save the mother's life, the
baby can be re-placed somewhere where growth can continue, if not
in the mother, then in an incubator.
Attempting to preserve the baby's life at this point will not
endanger any mother. Deliberately killing the
baby is never necessary. Every attempt should be made to
preserve the life of the baby. The death of an unborn baby should
always be a tragic and unfortunate consequence of underdeveloped
medical technology, never an intentional choice. [return]
next: Bio-Ethics
|