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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (65498)	2/1/2000 7:03:00 PM
From: Ish	Respond to of 67261

<<The solution is to define the term murder better. Can a thing be murdered or does it have to be a human? If human, when is viability? I have my own ideas, but I don't dwell on them. >> Ain't that the fee fid li ooo truth. Partial abortions really rag my ass. Two seconds between the most protected and fair game-no license needed. Insane.

To: Bill who wrote (65498)	2/1/2000 8:40:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 67261

I know 28 year olds that are not "viable" . Can a thing be murdered or does it have to be a human? If human, when is viability? Here are some clues to "when is human". How many do we have to have before we believe it. Sorry, could not resist. In 1981 (April 23-24) a Senate Judiciary Subcommittee held hearings on the very question before us here: When does human life begin? Appearing to speak on behalf of the scientific community was a group of internationally-known geneticists and biologists who had the same story to tell, namely, that human life begins at conception - and they told their story with a profound absence of opposing testimony. Dr. Micheline M. Mathews-Roth, Harvard medical School, gave confirming testimony, supported by references from over 20 embryology and other medical textbooks that human life began at conception. * "Father of Modern Genetics" Dr. Jerome Lejeune told the lawmakers: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." * Dr. Hymie Gordon, Chairman, Department of Genetics at the Mayo Clinic, added: "By all the criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception." * Dr. McCarthy de Mere, medical doctor and law professor, University of Tennessee, testified: "The exact moment of the beginning of personhood and of the human body is at the moment of conception." * Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine, concluded, "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being." * Dr. Richard V. Jaynes: "To say that the beginning of human life cannot be determined scientifically is utterly ridiculous." * Dr. Landrum Shettles, sometimes called the "Father of In Vitro Fertilization" notes, "Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind." And on the Supreme Court ruling _Roe v. Wade_, "To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion." * Professor Eugene Diamond: "...either the justices were fed a backwoods biology or they were pretending ignorance about a scientific certainty."

To: Bill who wrote (65498)	2/1/2000 11:06:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 67261

Perhaps, if you were to try doing it, you might become amazed by how impossible it is to define murder. Try it, and see how arbitrary a thing it is. Is murder the killing of the innocent? Then abortion is certainly the very definition of murder, as countless people have long maintained. Try to define "human" while excluding the conceptus, and you will exclude yourself, unless (as we do currently) you should depend upon some arbitrary shenanighan to find protection. Try defining "viability" and you will be forced to allow the destruction of very many neonates. And when medical science gets to a point where it allows a foetus to survive outside the human womb from conception to birth, the meaninglessness of the term "viability" will be made manifest to even the dullest amongst us. The solution is not to define the term "murder" as long as the term allows for the legal acceptance of abortion. Such a definition is by necessity flawed at its core. The solution is to recognise our inextricable link to the conceptus, and not lie to ourselves and to our children that it is not one of us. Whatever it is we mean by the term "human," one thing is as certain as gravity and the motion of the planets; and that is that the biological essence of what we are, exists at the point of conception. But again, there are folk who simply do not want to get bogged down by facts, and who would rather just claim the right to kill certain defenseless members of our race when convenient (--my friend coey claims men are evil, but she should give honest consideration to the profound evil in her own species). I ask why not let them kill at will, even after their children are born? I do not see any respectable principle by which we might allow them to kill up to the point of birth and forbid their killing afterward. Let them kill if they desire it, but only on their own nickle.