Re: Arguments from Nonexistence. Was: Extropians and animal rights

Michael S. Lorrey (
Thu, 14 Jan 1999 11:11:27 -0500

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