Sharks in the Septic Tank 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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Greg or e who wrote (81308)	7/15/2009 8:28:11 AM
From: Solon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) of 82486

"Have you not previously argued that Human Rights were only to be given to the self conscious?" No. What I have always said is that in spite of the philosophical basis put forth by some for denying human rights for a period of time after birth, I personally take the position that the fetus has become a child and most importantly has become individuated and separated from any parasitical ability to undermine the field of human rights. I don't think the fact that the child is not self conscious equates to a lack of interest on societies part. So that even if we don't afford rights to the newborn we would still afford protection. The question of when after birth a child ought to have rights is strictly academic as our society supports not only the wanted children but the unwanted as well. And I support rights of the newborn as a practical as well as a philosophical matter. "The question in these discussions is ALWAYS about WHEN human DNA ought to be considered as a HUMAN PERSON with the social RIGHTS which necessarily attach to that designation. The religious answer is (almost) always to advocate conception as the demarcation for "human person". But all the evidence makes this philosophically absurd and such a societal decision would make a mockery of all human rights and RIGHTS would simply become a matter of whim and caprice. You have no idea in that little convent of your mind how critical it is that sound reasoning prevail over hysterical superstition in this issue. You are clueless about the big picture and you are clueless about what is at stake." "Not at birth--NO. (and none of these scientific regulations that humankind has adopted can be deemed "arbitrary). But when abortion is legal the child is a WANTED child so for those couple of months where it may not logically have interests or ends or desires..it is still desired. And the sacrifice of the mother or father is VOLUNTARY. It is LOVE." "There is no reason to think that in a rational society (which allows the abortion of specks of dna) that mothers will turn against their DESIRED and SENTIENT offspring. Indeed, even though it is not logically a human person, there is sufficient cultural precedence that we can truly ignore the philosophers when it comes to newborn. Once they can take in and utilize oxygen through lung power instead of umbilical I think there are sound grounds for a practical approach to societal cohesiveness" "I don't think ANY abortion is a happy event for the mother or for society. But rights must not be decided for superstitious reasons for zygotes or spirits or God knows what fluff. RIGHTS ARE FOR LIVING CONSCIOUS PEOPLE"

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next