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: TimF who wrote (2525)10/15/2000 9:58:00 AM
From: Zeev Hed  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10042
 
Tim, educate me a little here. I thought that the use of the battle cry "Killing children" when referring to abortion was to differentiate between the killing of chickens (for consumption) and fetuses. It is not clear to me what is your stand on killing fowl and how it differ from killing "innocent unborn children". I would have thought that the question of ensoulement is central in granting those "unborn children" with "inallienable rights" derived from the constitution. I believe that this world has between half a billion to a billion people (I know not the exact number) that would not consume meat because it involves "killing", is that the philosophy on which you base equivalency between abortion and "killing innocent children". In other words, should your struggle to prevent other people from "killing innocent children" expand to protect these other living creatures?

If ensoulement, is the philosophical ground, then I will have to bring back that citation from Genesis, where ensoulement occurs upon the first taking of an independent breath. If the protection of all living being is the ground, I can respect your opinion (as I do those billion or so that avoid consumption of meat), but I do not see how you can impose vegeterianism on everyone that view consumption of a good piece of steak as an "inallienable" right.

Zeev