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 (17961)	5/2/2000 3:32:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Since I have been thinking about it, off and on, for nearly 30 years, it is unlikely that I will change much at this point.... The zygote is a human organism. Whether or not it is a person, or what constitutes personhood, is too speculative to serve as the criterion. For example, an infant has no real consciousness, but a mere sensory flux, and is incapable of deliberation and moral choice. Does that mean it is deficient in "personhood", and therefore fair game for destruction? A comatose patient has no effective consciousness, although there may be residual sentience, in the sense that he is capable of responding to stimuli, and may be able to dream somewhat. Yet we do not even begin to contemplate abandoning him unless his condition is hopeless. No, the only relevant criterion is whether or not it is a human organism, however undeveloped. However, because it may be harder to see than when the child is, say, 5 months, I would make a concession to the "controversiality" and be lenient. In other words, I do not care if it is a "person", only that it is a human being...... I didn't really say anything about shame, although I suppose it could be extrapolated. I am supposing that one would wish not to do this (abort), but that exigencies might arise, and cause one to do it. I am not supposing that there is a necessary stigma, merely that it is always viewed as regrettable........I will review my post to refresh myself on exactly what I said.....

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17961)	5/2/2000 3:37:00 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Just think on this then LRR. If you do not like basing anything you want to believe on moral grounds, then why not murder the born too, or three or twelve or twenty two year olds. Basically it is a moral issue that keeps you from doing that, no? Or is it only to keep you out of jail, or to sustain your own life, that you would not kill a twenty five year old? So see, I am betting you DO have some morals there. Now since the next man may NOT have those morals, what right do you have to "deconstruct" his stance that it is ok to kill a forty year old? Human life is human life....it is just that you want to decide when it is worthy of saving, no?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17961)	5/2/2000 3:42:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

As I thought, but wanted to confirm, the only place where I say that we should not wholly legitimize something is in the sentence recommending leniency for early term abortions. Since leniency implies penalty, just not as harsh, I was perfectly consistent........ Furthermore, we may treat early abortion more leniently, although still not wholly legitimizing it.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (17961)	5/2/2000 3:45:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

As I thought, but wanted to confirm, the only place where I say that we should not wholly legitimize something is in the sentence recommending leniency for early term abortions. Since leniency implies penalty, just not as harsh, I was perfectly consistent........ Furthermore, we may treat early abortion more leniently, although still not wholly legitimizing it.