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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (2379)	10/13/2000 8:36:26 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 10042

Then there is the interesting argument that if a woman is raped, it's somehow morally ok to kill THAT baby because it wasn't her fault- and she shouldn't have to take responsibility for the act(this was just argued at the "other" Bush thread). So suddenly we're not talking right to life-- we're talking punitive. I do not share the opinion of George Bush that it is ok to have an abortion when the child is the result of rape (if it was right to kill anyone it would be the rapist not the child), but I don't think the reason that some people support it usually punitive but rather that they are against abortion but not solid in their beliefs so they are seeking to find some middle ground or compromise. Tim

To: Rambi who wrote (2379)	10/13/2000 9:20:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 10042

Rambi, I presume we all agree that the question of "ensoulment" (living) is a religious question, not a moral question, is that correct? Thus using the gory term "kill a baby" when discussing a fetus that has not been ensouled, is not really "fair". By the way, my authority on the time when life starts comes from the Bible, Genesis, 2:7.."Then the Lord G-D formed man out of the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being." Quite clearly, after man was formed, he was not alive, only after he took his first breath he becomes a "living being". Now, I realize that some religious sects disregard completely the holy scriptures and their dictum on when life starts, and that is their constitutional right, but forcing their beliefs on other religious sects that happen to believe in the holy scripture's exactitude as to the question of "when life starts", would be infringing on the constitutional rights of such said other religious sects. Thus you can talk about termination of pregnancy and argue various treatment of various trimesters, the termination of that pregnancy by a hot bath post sex (if it works), or the taking of special herbs, if they work, or that pill (it works), or even surgical intervention (but please, no coat hangers, too many young girls died hopelessly trying this approach), you can even argue the moral grounds for you opinion, but calling it "killing" is nothing short of ridiculous, since you cannot kill something which is not alive. By the way, termination of pregnancy is also forbidden by the bible, but that sin is against the dictum of "thou shall multiply", another sin against the same dictum is male (not female) masturbation. So, as far as I can see, the severety of the sin of abortion is on the same level as the sin of male masturbation. I presume you would recommend policing all those youngsters and assure they do not commit that sin against the dictum "thou shall multiply". Zeev