In response to:

The Libertarian Case for Life

Diogenese_wy Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 2:39 PM
So, according to your logic, those humans who have suffered irreparable brain damage and are no longer capable of higher thought processes are not human and are not entitled to human rights? Also, If the human fetus, conceived by the combining of two distinctly human DNA strands is not human, then are you saying that it is some other species? Are you an abortion doctor, attempting to justify your murderous profession?
Tommy_Maq Wrote: Apr 02, 2013 6:09 PM
People incapable of surviving on their own don't actually have a right to life, because they must have someone's willing cooperation to survive. As "rights" are things we don't need permission to do, and vegetables need help AKA permission from their caretakers, they lack a right to life. They do have a right to die, by the same logic.

Who, exactly, is obligated to take care of them? Does a brain-dead person have a 'right' to force people to take care of them?

Answer; no, they don't.

Giving the government power to force people to care for them (or to use taxes to compensate their care-takers) might appeal to our sentiments as human beings, and perhaps should be condoned for that reason, but is certainly not protecting *rights*.

At this year’s Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), I was invited to participate on a panel called "The Future of the Movement: Winning with Generation X/Y." I had a lot of ideas to discuss, including utilizing new messages to reach this new pro-life generation, recruiting more candidates with a willingness to stand up for what they believe in, developing new technology, and improving grassroots organizing, to name a few.

But, instead of focusing on the panel's extremely important topic, the moderator, Students for Liberty Co-Founder Alexander McCobin, decided to use his time to advance his libertarian ideal of legalizing gay marriage....