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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (4205)	1/31/2001 5:27:51 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Many religious people consider eating pork a sin. I would be against makeing something illegeal for reasons of it being considered a sin. What if a group wanted a national law against pork eating? With ideas that do not have theological roots we can all look at the idea, and look at the evidence- and the evidence can be looked at somewhat objectively. With theological ideas the evidence is belief- and it cannot be separated from religion, Can you show me evidence to support philisophical ideas that are not religious? I'm not talking about practical results from trying to implement the ideals but rather the ideals themselves. I believe that we should have a high degree of individual liberty, even perhaps in a few cases where there are some negative consiquences from that liberty. Would my support of libertarian ideas be out of bounds for consideration in the political arena if I can not prove them or even provide evidence that they might be right? I wouldn't want people legislating because of Gaia any more than I would want people legislating on behalf of the Christian God. How about people legislating based on non-religous philosophies or subjective beliefs? Any time you ask what the law should be you are dealing with abstract ideas that often are not subject to proof or weighing of evidence. Can you prove to me that slavery is unjust? Can you prove that welfare is a morally just thing? (or that is is not morally just?) Can you prove that a woman should have a right to have an abortion? (and perhaps to have the governent pay for it if she can't afford it?) Policy is not just a matter of adding up facts. Abortion- especially ru486- can be of the "bundle of cells" you seem to divorce from personhood. So when do the cells become a person? When it has a beating heart? When it can function outside the mother's body with heroic technological equipment? When? Is there even a specific when? The unbron become more and more obviously human as pregnacy continues. It can be considered a process rather then an event. My natural inclination would be to protect the developing human from the begining of the process. From the earliest point that it has a seperate identity (i.e. conception). By the ime it has a beating heart or by the time it can live outside the mother it is more obvious but abortion is still legal. Abortion is legal past the point of pregnacy when my mother gave birth to me. Could you atleast support banning post-viability abortions? Personally viability is not an important standerd but I understand that it is for some people. Tim