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: Zeev Hed who wrote (2422)	10/14/2000 10:44:32 AM
From: briskit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

The seed spilling seemed to abrogate social responsibility. The guy's duty was to continue his brother's line or something. I always took it to be a social responsibility which was in question. That is my take on the best way to view abortion. I am not against it all the time by any means. It seems to me in our culture to be a question of whether the woman wants the baby, which is no standard, if I may be so bold. Breath and spirit are closely related in these texts. If you think evolution occurred then you might assert that the Almighty granted "soul", or the ability to relate to the divine at that point, not breath itself. Even a strict creationist recognizes that everything living was breathing, just without a "soul" as it is understood in this particular way. I don't think it was oxygen combustion that made the difference in question. The ability to relate does require one to breathe, as we living ones understand it of course, but is not equated with it. Certainly if there is an afterlife it does not require oxygen, which might work to diminish the role of the first breath and having a soul. Question, were there no compensations for expectant mothers who lost fetuses at the hands of someone else or there ox or something? It seemed the unborn had protections or rights in some of those cases.