Should God be replaced? Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Should God be replaced?

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (21178)	7/13/2005 7:37:51 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) of 28931

<<<How much genetic damage does one have to have in order to justify killing it?>>> "It is not for me to draw those lines. It is between the woman and her doctor." That's not an answer it's an irrelevant evasion of the question. It was you that said partial birth infanticide was justified by the fact that some of the unborn had genetic damage. The natural question that raises is; How much damage does there need to be in order to justify taking the life of an innocent Human being? It's a simple question. I could see justification for taking another Humans life in the case of self defense. I can even see a good case made for capital punishment of criminals for particularly heinous crimes. However to take the life of an innocent Human being for no other reason than convenience or some general selfish interest is not morally justifiable. Could it just be that it's a female instead of a male child and the parents don't want a female? There really doesn't need to be any reason does there? It's legal and that's all that matters to you. So if killing toddlers was "legal" that would be none of your business either, but what happened in a war three thousand years ago is all consuming to you? What's up with that? Any Judge that classifies some Humans as non persons so that they may be legally killed for the sake of convenience is not just a moron they are morally bankrupt. "The reasoned position at which a creature with human DNA becomes a LEGAL PERSON is at the point which it has inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This ensues upon separation from the mother." A child in the mothers arms has no more ability to "pursue" rights than a child in the womb. Both are entirely dependent. So... the essential difference between "a creature with human DNA" and you is....? Oh right, you are not helpless and vulnerable. "the passion to assist is still alive and active in the human conscience" Apparently not.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next