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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jbe who wrote (82796)	6/23/2000 6:18:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

There is another difference. A fetus is parasitic- and you have to make the choice to compel someone to SUPPORT that life in their body. When someone is not executed, that does not mean some one else in society will have to put their own health and life at risk for that person to sustain his or her life. It's always nice when people volunteer a kidney or a piece of liver for a person who cannot live with the organs they have- but I sure as heck wouldn't want to compel it. Seems to me forcing women to carry fetuses is similar to that.

To: jbe who wrote (82796)	6/23/2000 6:22:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

jbe, My religion reports that the soul enters the fetus at the end of the first trimester. Although we still don't know the exact moment that this occurs, this represents for us a measure of when the thing is human and when it is not. This coincidentally, or not, is the period that science struggles with the notion of humaness. So for me it is not that arguable. The other point is. If you believe that a life should not be denied and you are using the most heinously brutal criminal aspects of society and saying, not even the worst of these; while attributing that to your compassion for the right to live. Well....the callous approach some people take toward a fetus doesn't match up. I understand and appreciate the idea that a woman has the right to be self determining. There have been times where there were no limits of what parents could choose for their living children, including infanticide. There are limits now. There are limits to what she can do to her children who survived the womb, why not the ones inside? Of course there are lots of aspects on all sides to consider. But when I step back and I look at the big picture (globally) it appears that people are choosing to eliminate baby girls in favour of baby boys. That was the justification for infanticide in the past. And, that makes it pretty clear to me where this is headed. Apples and oranges if your looking at one social issue as criminal rights and the other as women's rights. Not apples and oranges if the issue is the sacredness of the right to life.

To: jbe who wrote (82796)	6/24/2000 2:22:00 AM
From: nihil	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think the basic question is whether the state should kill or should prevent a woman from having an unwanted fetus ejected. Compulsory abortion (widely practiced in China) is state ordered murder, IMO. I think a woman's right to abort is primarily a religious question. Most liberals believe in a very high degree of personal control over one's body and children. So that some defend the right, e.g. of Jehovah's Witnesses to refuse blood transfusions for their sick child. Some medical experts argue that this can sometimes amount to murder. "Murder" is purely a legal question in the U.S. If the government says abortion is legal, then it isn't murder. That makes the abortion issue a conflict between the state and religion. Many conservatives and religious people believe that every fertilized ovum has a right to life regardless of what the mother thinks. Even in America, the individual has no absolute right to life -- it is subject to due process of law. There are still states that make attempted suicide a crime. Czarist Russia abolished the death penalty in the 18th century largely on Christian or Englightenment principles I guess when no one had any rights while there were hundreds of offenses in England that were subject to the death penalty. The idea that Judaeo-Christian tradition values human life is very new. The Church murdered thousands of heretics and Muslims. Moses brags about murdering thousands of innocent children. The Bible reeks with the blood of many innocents. Jesus is the only one who seems to be innocent of these crimes, but Jehovah is not.