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.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SecularBull who wrote (6090)	10/6/2000 11:59:56 AM
From: Venkie	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

knock it off on the politics and lets make money<gg> I am getting a new porsche<2001< All I hv to do is write a ck for the difference and loose $1500 trade in .. only get taxed for difference in totals.I am getting a red one this time ..kinda unsure about that.I need more horsies...

To: SecularBull who wrote (6090)	10/6/2000 12:10:16 PM
From: Jill	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

Geez, Loffy! If you want some real philosophical conundrums to add into that go read Peter Singer, the famous/infamous Australian philosopher. When is life "life"? When do we have a right to end life, if someone is terminal, in a coma, etc. We will preserve children born with only a brain stem, yet who here eats meat--didn't the animal have more awareness/consciousness/right to life than a human simply because the human is human, if they are nonfunctional? Etc etc. Our technology allows us to create increasingly fine lines between life and death and then our moral absolutes get necessarily fuzzy. I'm not sure these questions can be answered in terms of moral absolutes ever, but simply practical realism. Such as, in the heat of the moment people will get carried away and not use contraception. (Someone posted a story recently of how women in war times had lots of affairs--someone else, I think Tim, said that's nature's way of preserving life). Making condoms available helps but... Then you say, to those irresponsible people, have the kid anyway....kids end up abused...lives are ruined in the process...when do you make the decision? Or who takes care of the kids? The "state"? All I'm saying is there are no easy answers.

To: SecularBull who wrote (6090)	10/6/2000 12:47:01 PM
From: abstract	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 65232

At what point to we consider a child to have rights? All opponents of my position, answer that question, please. Well, I'll tell ya what I think (but I don't want to debate this all day). I know that when a child is born alive, it is alive and at that point has rights. At what precise moment prior to that it is a life, I can't say. I don't know. My personal opinion about abortion vacillates. Most often I think it is wrong. I do know that abortions have a lot to do with what is going on inside a woman's body. I have always found it the height of presumptive, sexist crap that a man, or an organization of men, feels it has the right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body. The same man who impregnates a woman and takes no responsibility for so doing and then grows up to legislate that she hasn't the right to assume responsibility for herself is a hypocrite of the first order. Not until a legislature of 100% women passes a law that says a woman shouldn't have an abortion will I respect a law that is passed by those who are not subject to it. Combatting legislation without representation is 100% what America is about (remember why we are no longer part of Britain). To my mind legislation on the issue of abortion is unAmerican. Men should butt out (and yes, I am a man.) Thank you very much.