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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17433)	4/24/2000 3:42:00 PM
From: DMaA	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Whether or not it is Human life, you cannot deny it is alive can you? In what way is the word killer loaded? If I step on an ant I kill it. If I crush a cockroach I kill it. What euphemism would you prefer?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17433)	4/24/2000 3:43:00 PM
From: Jacques Chitte	Respond to of 769667

>Why should [proving the personhood of an embryo] be the job of the one trying to protect it?< I can give you a very good reason. What I'm getting here (and I could be wrong, but allow me to develop the impression) is that the burden of proof is polarized along an axis of the inherent MORALITY of the thing being proven. That is that the Advocatus diaboli bears the entire burden, whereas the Advocatus dei is secure in operating fro a position of presumption. I don't like this. The reason for this is that even when consensus can be established over what is right and good, the Advocatus dei (specifically, the empowered church or other theocracy) becomes unchallenged in deeds that later prove utterly evil. Consider the Church in Europe. Burning "witches" is good? Persecuting Jews is good? Consider Sharia law in some Muslim countries. Institutional misogyny is good? Amputation as routine law enforcement is good? If the "good" or "prudent" (incumbent!) side of an argument is held to the same rigid rules of proof as the "challenger" or "outrageous" side ... the threat of tyranny is greatly reduced. In our special little case here of prochoice vs. prolife, I would submit the idea that presuming the humanity of the zygote is NOT the way to the greatest evolution of kindness, to appropriate one of E's ideas. So I would like to see it rendered convincing ... in terms that do NOT use Evangelical Protestant (or Catholic or Sunni Muslim...) religious doctrine as the untouchable premise. Too much evil has been foisted on the backs of the regular person in the name of God, and "God said so" doan cut it with me.