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 (124380)	1/30/2001 11:31:22 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

[The notion it is self-evident that all humans have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness] is a philosophical and ethical belief. It is not a law of nature. It is not a scientific fact. It is not subject to a scientific proof. Science is but applied philosophy. “All cows eat grass. Elsie is a cow. Therefore Elsie eats grass” is by philosophy determined to be logically apparent. We do not need test tubes to prove the integrity of the form. It is made self-evident by reason. The human right to life is logically apparent, especially when we observe what happens when we deny it as you have in effect done. If all innocent humans do not in principle have the right to life, then in effect no human has it because we are in possession of no objective means to determine which humans are by principle expendable. The basis of civilized society, family and even our own continuation ceases to exist. The result of such denial is nihilism, which is the basis for nothing. No, my friend—existence is the one objectively apparent value between us. All truth flows from its maintenance. The whole debate over abortion stems from the weighing of rights of the fetus to life against the rights of the mother to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Well now. We’ve come far to hear you claiming the foetus has rights to weigh against another human. I will say here that if “the whole debate over abortion stems from the weighing of rights of the fetus to life against the rights of the mother to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” then the exact same aspects of the debate also apply to rights of newborn infants weighed against the rights of their mothers. The mother's right to privacy must also be considered since any attempt to completely ban abortions would involve highly intrusive monitoring of the bodily functions of all women suspected of having been pregnant. False. It would involve monitoring the abortionists who actually commit the murders. The privacy of pregnant women remains intact. But privacy gives a woman no moral right to murder another human, even one that lives in her womb. So far the judgement of the majority is that if a women can be forced to bear against her will, she does not have the same rights to life, liberty or the pursuit of happiness as any man does. If this is true, then the majority is objectively wrong. Women have exactly the same natural rights as men. But by virtue of biology they must exploit their rights differently. For example, a woman may have the same right to swim as a man. But because she is a woman, she may want to use her rights to prepare for the time when she begins to menstruate, lest she become embarrassed in her new white bikini. Men do not need to make such preparations. Moreover, women and men have the same right to parenthood, but by virtue of anatomy must exploit the right differently. Were there no modern conveniences women would be compelled to breastfeed their children because by virtue of anatomy they can do it and men can’t. Additionally, men and women have the same right to couple as nature allows. But by virtue of anatomy they must exploit this right differently. By natural definition women do not have sex like men, and men do not have sex like women. Also, because of biology women must consider sex differently than men because men do not get pregnant from sex. So even in the case where a woman gets pregnant and has an abortion she yet does not have the ability to exploit her right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness as does a man. Men never have to get abortions. So abortions cannot possibly give any sort of parity to women. Men and women have exactly the same rights. But nature has decreed that the means by which those rights are enjoyed can never be the same. Now you’ve claimed “Judaism” supports abortion in the case where an unborn child threatens a woman’s sanity. I am very interested in seeing your evidence for this.