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: pezz who wrote (65514)	2/3/2000 12:49:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

It is not a bag of cells, but a living organism, and nothing other than the offspring of humans. It is merely a contortion to regard it as other than human, at a certain stage of development, especially once gestation is sufficient for the skeleton, musculature, and nervous system to be developed, towards the end of the first trimester. We may just as well take a baby and determine that because it has not developed adult characteristics or an autonomous personality, it should be at the mercy of its parents. There are arguments that one can make for a limited right to abortion, but none of any seriousness for an unlimited right.......

To: pezz who wrote (65514)	2/3/2000 12:58:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Sorry I could not stick around to see if you responded tonight. I tried......Good night!

To: pezz who wrote (65514)	2/3/2000 10:44:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

It is so typical of you, pezz, to produce a dull witted argument that has as its *entire basis* the assumption that you are something other than a bag of cells. Contrary to your claims, I have never once "compared thinking feeling humans to a bag of cells," as I cannot make a distinction I do not see. While ultimately we all make assumptions, here on the street I make relatively few. Unlike you, I simply refuse to kill the innocent living organism that, as a matter of scientific fact shares, without exception, the same peculiar biological essence and trajectory as every human on this planet. On this factual basis I happen to think humanity far more diverse than the paltry group of humans you might classify as "thinking and feeling." Some post-natal autistic or ill people can perhaps by your standard easily be classified as those who do not "think" or "feel," and so by definition would be deemed nothing more than expendable bags of cells. My friend, you are not fit to judge who "thinks" or who "feels," and you surely are not fit to judge who is but a "bag of cells" such that you may reasonably kill on that basis. Yet this is precisely what you do, though being unfit to do it. Had your kind never come along to irrationally claim unborn children ipso facto mere expendable "bags of cells," folk like me would obviously never have claimed anything to the contrary. No, you have made irrational assumptions, never using reason to demonstrate your position, but simply supporting millions of murders on the basis of barbaric whim. It is not I who "compared thinking feeling humans to a bag of cells." You did, and you did it without reason. Non-perceptive readers (unfortunately the vast majority of people) will nod along with your little abortion fallacies, but perceptive readers will demand you prove a general distinction between unborn humans and all born humans that would logically compel a reasonable man to protect one group over and above another. I think you cannot do this. If not, then on what basis do you kill one group and not another? Cannibalistic Barbarism. Now you claim my tax money is not mine to self-righteously withhold. I agree with this, but in that I pay the tax I obviously do not withhold it, and so your statement is irrelevant to me. The money is mine to righteously steward via my citizenship. When I therefore see it spent on barbaric whim, I have a duty on the basis of citizenship to fight against it. But gradually I am less proud to be a citizen with the likes of those who would be such willful and utter failures and of such poor character as to sanction by law the killing of helpless children merely because of difficult circumstances. And correspondingly the events and barbarisms of this country are of decreasing importance to me. Very well then, I give the money without challenge. Those who murder their children should do it, as well as those who support such perverted "choices." It is perhaps better their unfortunate children should die quickly, than live tortured lives with morally weak and psychologically twisted parents. Oh but my accusations have "no merit," despite your statement below. Tell ya what, you pay for the support of the unwanted welfare child for the 18 years with your nickle and I'll pay for the abortion with mine...Is fair,no?... See who has the most nickles at the end of the day. If you think the assessment has "no merit", then fine. I know otherwise. Even so, I would gladly support life with my nickel and allow you to support death with yours. Indeed I have already spent the years of labour, sacrifice and expense to raise a dear friend who would otherwise have been killed by abortion cowards. There is a principle here in which I boast. I now see my closest companions have learned the meaning of duty, honour, forgiveness and sacrifice not by mere words, but by example. And it seems to me better to depend upon such companions than those who by a lifetime of experience have learned dishonour, cowardice and such extreme failure as supporting the murder of innocent beings simply because life presents a challenge.