Replies

A long article with four pages and many photos (that I don't know how to transfer). Includes info on a libertarian delegate for Bush (sic), plus Karen Kwiatkowski, and more on that pro-lifer who was booed. The booing wasn't nice, but I'm still voting for Michael Badnarik in 2004!

Jeffrey Diket may not have been the only Pro-Life Libertarian in the race.

The gentleman who actually won the Libertarian Party nomination, Michael Badnarik, revealed recently in a June 17, 2004 interview with The Free Liberal that he has (like formerly pro-abortion Ronald Reagan?) changed his position on Abortion.

...using my own logic, I deduced that the child must own its own body so the child has a right to life.... That leaves two choices. Either birth, or conception. But, I don’t think anyone’s willing to argue that the child doesn’t own his body until birth, because that would allow us to do partial birth abortions. And I don’t know anybody, who supports that view. So the only choice left is that child will necessarily own its own body at conception. And so I’ve switched, from a purely pro-choice to a pro-life, I don’t think abortions are proper. I’m pro-choice, as long as you make the choice before you have sex. We have rights that have inherent responsibilities.

Badnarik confesses that he is now torn between the advocacy of "no abortions ever", and the position of judging "clinical life" by the standard of "at the beginning of brain activity" similarly to the medical standard of establishing Clinical Death (which would, theoretically, permit abortions prior to the 4th week of Pregnancy).

Regardless of his ongoing consideration of the legitimacy of early abortions (permissible before the onset of brain activity, or Always Wrong?), Badnarik appears to have consistently maintained throughout his campaign that Abortion -- like all Murder Law -- is properly a State's Right's issue.

If, therefore, he comes out with a strong Constitutionalist condemnation of Roe vs. Wade, and the resultant reversion of Abortion Law to the State Legislatures, he will be the 4th out of the last 5 Libertarian Party Presidential Nominees to advocate the overthrow of Roe vs. Wade.

Which is a nice trend to see developing amongst LP Presidential Nominees.

Badnarik appears to have consistently maintained throughout his campaign that Abortion -- like all Murder Law -- is properly a State's Right's issue.

Undoubtedly the LP would claim that slavery is a State's Rights issue, too, seeing that their constituency is largely enslaved by ideology or vice or ego. Alongside the slave auctions they could hold Rights Exchanges, where rights are bartered and sold on the open market, along with consensual gladiatorial contests to the consensual death for that consensual million dollar prize. And they will try to label all this retro-cruelty: 'human progress.'

If the neo-natal infant has not the right of life, then there is no right of life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness, because the last 3 presume the first, and the first presumes a beginning.

So far as the Libertarian candidate, I know that the Constitution Party candidate is totally pro-life with no mental reservations.

So far as Pres. Bush is concerned, I believe (?) he is rape/incest/life of mother pro-life. (There is a large distinction between that pro-abortion.)

So far as John Kerry, he has a lifelong, radical pro-abortion voting record.