SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Fiscally Conservative who wrote (2405)10/13/2000 11:58:00 PM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10042
 
Finally, something always gets lost in the translation. The Hebrew version, is actually more accurate, in that it uses for breathing and for "soul" the same words but with slight different intonation (Neshama-Soul, Neshima-Breath), then the connection between "ensoulement" and first independent breath becomes quite clear. Nevertheless, this is a religious interpretation and I have no objection to the Pope wanting to interpret the Bible differently and declare ensoulement to occur upon conception. I do object having to abide by the Pope's interpretation which would violate my own religious beliefs.

This goes beyond the question of the right of a woman to take control over her body. There are countless cases where continuation of a pregnancy put the woman life in clear and present danger of death. To most religions, life is holy, thus if you accept the a fetus is "alive", you put people in a position of having to chose between two lives, the woman or her unborn fetus. I know for a fact that some religions have unequivocally determined that in such cases, the life of the living woman is the one to be saved, not that of the unborn fetus.

Legislating unborn fetus to have "inallienable rights" under the constitution will be in conflict with the freedom to practice one's religion, and thus unconstitutional.

Zeev