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 : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3001)	9/20/1999 12:50:00 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Not much time this morning, explained on Feelings. But quickly: Amazingly, you appear to be saying that if an embryo isn't a person, then a Jew isn't. No. I'm saying that throughout history (and into today) societies have always divided forms of human life into "us" (those who are fully human by our definition and deserve the full protection of our laws) and "not us" (those who are not fully human and do not deserve the full protection of our laws.) It's a pretty simple and obvious principle -- nothing particularly deep so far. Slaves in America were not us. Women in medieval Europe were not us. Jews and homosesexuals in Nazi Germany were not us. And fetuses in modern America are not us. What I am trying to get at is what basis people use when they make the "us" and "not us" distinctions. For me, I place both jews and fetuses in the "us" category. They are both people. They both have the full genetic capacity to be or become human beings. You place jews in the "us" category and early fetuses in the "not us" category. You say it is because they are only potential and not the thing itself. But what makes them not the thing? What is the thing you are referring to, and when do they become the thing and not the potential?