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: Lane3 who wrote (4453)	2/2/2001 4:58:31 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

there is also a large impulse in nature for siblings to kill each other. A larger sibling bird will push it's smaller siblings from the nest. A larger sibling of most species will take it's siblings food- even if that means to starve the sibling to death. Deformed juvenile animals are often killed by their siblings by starvation.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4453)	2/3/2001 4:51:34 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

>> And there are lots of examples in nature where parents purposely destroy the weakest of their offspring to improve the survival of the rest. I don't see how helping Mother Nature out judiciously can be inherently wrong. << Okay, finally a statement that almost addresses bland's original post on this subject: Message 15280431 Specifically, the first two questions: >> If it's not wrong to kill an unborn child, then why isn't it equally "not wrong" to kill a child once it is born, or at any time of the mother's own choosing? What reasons are there for killing a child before it is born that suddenly become less legitimate (rather than actually more so) once it is born? << Do you feel, given your statement above, that mothers should be allowed to kill their children after they are born? If a bill was introduced into Congress to make such an act legal, would you support it?