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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (1454)	12/18/2000 1:42:29 PM
From: Atin	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 6089

So, a moral dilemma to ponder: with very few exceptions, the cells in your body contain the complete DNA required to create a new human being given the right circumstances (sort of like a fertilized egg that contains all the DNA required to create a new human being given the right circumstances). Does this mean that all surgery to remove cells from the body should be illegal because each one of those cells that will be killed has the potential to become a child given the right circumstances? There will come a time when this will be possible -- most probably in our lifetimes so you might as well start thinking about it. And, I'm not even going to go into the "wasting the seed" part -- though given the right circumstances, you don't even need hard core science for that to become a human being! <g> While we're at it, are you for the death penalty or against it?

To: TimF who wrote (1454)	12/18/2000 2:46:32 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 6089

Would protecting the newborns amount to imposeing their religon on others? Failure to protect newborns would be a violation of the Constitution, which protects all citizens. A citizen is someone who was BORN here or BORN to American parents or naturalized. Would it be incompatable with libertarian thought. Libertarians are for limited government. They're certainly not inclined to create out of whole cloth rights that aren't in the Constitution. I think of the unborn child as deserving of rights just as the newborn is. I respect that sentiment. Heck, I'm such a softie that I regularly trap insects in my house and gently place them outside. When I cut back a houseplant, I always put the clippings in water to root them or I feel like a murderer. I'm hardly cavalier about a fetus. I would encourage you to continue to do all that you can informally to discourage abortion. But that's not the point. The point is that libertarians don't create a right that is not in the Constitution, let alone have that right trump the right of the woman, who IS protected by the Constitution. Libertarians don't take a charming sentiment and turn it into a law that restricts the rights of citizens. Libertarians also don't intrude into matters as complicated as this one that are none of their business and especially none of the business of the government but rather trust individuals to do the right thing as they see it. And further, libertarians don't create another bureaucracy to regulate and enforce those new laws. This is what the Libertarian Party has to say on the subject: "Recognizing that abortion is a very sensitive issue and that people, including libertarians, can hold good-faith views on both sides, we believe the government should be kept out of the question." Karen