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: chalu2 who wrote (4307)	8/25/1999 12:51:00 AM
From: pezz	Respond to of 769670

<< My position is that maybe you are wrong, and maybe I am wrong-->> Ok that's your position........ Your claim that nobody has made a convincing argument is no more valid than the claim by pro life that pro choice has not made a convincing argument. Your decision to admit that pro life has failed to make a convincing argument does not obligate me to say that pro choice has failed as well...... Leaving us right where we started. <<we are in an area where nobody can "prove" on a scientific basis when human life begins>>.... So what? Many an individual has been sent to the gas chamber where he/she could not be proven on a "sicientific basis" of guilt. Do you suggest that we error on the side of life here ? In life there are many things that cannot be proven on a "scientific basis" and yet we accept them as truth. <<It can if left to nature independently grow, play, run, jump, marry,>> My position is that a fetus may well have a potential to be a human. Given certain situations so does the sperm in my body . Yet this is hardly a human being..... Potential cannot think, have self awareness or anything commonly thought of as human qualities.....Thus my position is I am right ..... <<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. >> But I can be sure........That is the position of pro choice! Simply because you dispute this changes nothing from the original debate. You only claim stalemate as fact..... You have only proven this to your self. pez