Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pezz who wrote (4295)	8/24/1999 10:22:00 PM
From: chalu2	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I am not looking for the agreement of my "cohorts" whoever those may be. I haven't moved from saying I am right to maybe you are wrong. My position is that maybe you are wrong, and maybe I am wrong--we are in an area where nobody can "prove" on a scientific basis when human life begins because there is no objective way to determine this. In this type of quandary, we risk snuffing out a human life unless we adopt a definition of life that begins at least at conception--i.e., when the process of the development of a distinct human being has been set inexorably in motion, and will continue in motion unless disturbed. This is why I have trouble with the notion that a fetus is just a part of a woman's body. It is not. It can if left to nature independently grow, play, run, jump, marry, and sail around the world. Let's see other parts of a woman's body do that; livers, kidneys, etc. are indisputably part of a woman's body. A fetus with an independent future if left undisturbed is unique. If you cannot be sure, and I cannot be sure, the question defaults in favor preserving life from the moment it is set in motion. I don't view this as a political issue.