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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124259)	1/29/2001 4:22:31 PM
From: swisstrader	Respond to of 769670

Nadine...please, this man has been used and abused today...let him go take his medication and perhaps he can come out and play another day.

To: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124259)	1/29/2001 10:09:30 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

To say: "I am no more prepared to say that these early stages represent an incomplete human being than I would be to say that the child prior to the dramatic effects of puberty ... is not a human being.” (Dr. Alfred Bongiovanni, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine) is a personal opinion. Riight. It's personal opinion like this: Scientists also know that a new human life begins at conception (fertilization). In an excellent book entitled The Position of Modern Science on the Beginning of Human Life (copyright 1975, Scientists for Life) we read this brilliantly simple and clear explanation on page 15-- "When did your life begin?" The answer to this question can be phrased simply by going backward in time. Before you were an adult, you were an adolescent, and before that a child, and before that an infant. Before you were an infant--i.e., before you were born--you were a fetus, and before that an embryo. Before you were an embryo, around the time of your implantation, you were a blastocyst, and before that a morula, and before than a zygote or fertilized ovum. However, you were never a sperm or an unfertilized ovum. Therefore, while life is continuous, your life began when the nucleus of your father's sperm fused with the nucleus of your mother's ovum, or at fertilization. [The Christian News (Jan. 13, 1986), p. 8] There is no opinion here at all, madam. This is completely provable by science. "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion ... it is plain experimental evidence." (Dr. Jerome Lejeune, the "Father of Modern Genetics") Scientists may disagree on whether rights should extend to the human conceptus, but the scientific consensus is that human beings, human individuals, first exist at the moment of conception. Now on what basis do "choicers" support abortion with federal funds? Not science, and they cannot by law do it by religion. They do it by barbarism, pure and simple. If a fertilized ovum is a complete human being then why don't you ask it to dinner and get its opinion on the matter? For the same reason I won't ask a neonate, 1, 2, 3 year-old, or even some adults to dinner for a discussion of this sort. They are not yet mature enough for such experiences. Still doesn't give us the right to murder them (sigh). Most people feel that humanity involves one or two more steps, such as the ability to survive as an independent life-form. Then "most people" apparently need to learn that their "feelings" are not designed to think with. These "one or two" steps of yours are clearly arbitrary, and so serve as no logical basis for our murdering other humans. Neonates are not obviously independent life forms as they must depend upon others to survive, and neither are many elderly people. Indeed, one can legitimately argue that even you are not an independent life form. What is objectively apparent is that the conceptus is an individual human life by virtue of its genetic character, its constant self-replication and ever increasing self-expression. It is self-evident that humans are given the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. They are given this right not on the basis of their ability to enjoy dinner and converse, but by The Creator. We have no proven right to deny humans their natural rights. [You are] willing to demonize the opposition. False. I do not have power to do this. The opposition actually supports our right to literally slaughter millions of innocent human entities. There is no other way to describe it but via the word "demonic." The opposition demonizes itself. BTW, supporting abortion when the mother's life or sanity is at risk is fully in accord with the traditions of Judaism. I have argued here that abortion in the case of endangered life can possibly be ethical. So then if this "Judaism" (whatever it is) of yours supports this view, then I possibly cannot see an objection. But what is this "Judaism" that supports abortion on the basis of potential insanity? Where is your proof of this? I would like to see it. Even so, America does not take its legal position from Judaism, or so it claims. So "Choicers" yet have no basis to demand federal funding for murder. Finally, I have a news flash for you: Women do not have abortions on a lark One should hope not. But this bit of information yet does not alter the fact that abortionists profit from the remarkable savagery that is abortion. And when a woman employs the services of an abortionist, she assists in the murder of her own child.