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: Solon who wrote (5244)	2/9/2001 9:26:42 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

The ONLY argument against abortion is the argument from RIGHTS. A person has the RIGHT to think and to act...REGARDLESS OF WHAT ANY POWER STRUCTURE DECLARES FOR ITSELF OR FOR YOU. RIGHTS precede organizations and Governments. "Rights" are imposed by organizations and Governments. RIGHTS are the natural result of free thought and independent existence. Just reread my post. I meant to say, the only argument FOR abortion... Any other mistakes can stand as my RIGHTS to make mistakes...

To: Solon who wrote (5244)	2/9/2001 9:44:09 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Hi, Solon. You must have returned from your week's adventure well rested--your response to me was really, really, er, long. You seem be looking at what I posted through some filter that is alien to me. I don't know where you got the notion that I think it's ok to take someone's sandwich. Or that I'm the only arbiter of fairness. Or that might makes right. This particular moral principle of mine, which has turned out to be a red herring, is a much higher standard than required by societal norms or by law. If I choose to set a higher standard for myself than I expect of others, you betcha I'm going to be the sole arbiter of that standard. For the record, on the subject of abortion, I subscribe to the right to be left alone, not the right to an abortion. That puts me in the pro-choice camp with those who perceive a right to an abortion. I'm fine with that and I trust that they are, too. So much for the moral principle diversion. Kant says that the philosophy of ethics derives from the foundation of freedom. I term this an ultimate right--the right to be free. Freedom is the natural and the logical foundation of ethics. I agree that ethics depends of freedom. I place a high value on both ethics (I'm more at home dealing with ethics than morality and, as I said, don't usually use the latter word.) and freedom. RIGHTS are moral principles. They don't rely on religious dogma. They rely on science and logic. I can appreciate a philosophy of life based on science, logic, and freedom. You and I probably have similar values and a similar sense of ethics. If we were next door neighbors, we'd probably be good buds. We would, however, probably go to our graves arguing about the source of those values and ethics. It looks to me like you want to substitute some religion-like set of universal principles for existing religious dogma--something bigger than us. I just think it comes from a social contract among us, not from outside. Thus, we cannot have the RIGHT to freedom of action without granting it to others. This involves the moral. This is the essence of the social contract as I see it. We grant it to others to produce the right for us and others to have it. These "rights" are imposed by the organization that gains sufficient power from accumulating the most votes. The only thing that justifies these kinds of "rights"--in the end--is MIGHT. And that is why people say, "Oh, I'm so scared that Gore will get in!", or, "I'm terrified of Bush!". They know that "rights" are imposed without consent, and that they do not need to be justified by either reason or morality. There are not even referenda to give the illusion of consent. Yup. No person or Government can take away RIGHTS. RIGHTS are not granted; They are not removed. Their existence rests on reason. Our exercise of thought acknowledges our respect for reason. It is a fundamental attribute of the human condition. That would be nice. I'm sorry. I prefer to rely on RIGHTS which are universal and moral, and which commend themselves to reason. I understand the reality of society, rules, laws, contracts, and agreements; But when "rights" are imposed that are unreasonable, immoral, or unwanted--individuals and groups ought to have something to fall back on as argument in defence of their nature--the self evident RIGHTS to life and freedom. These RIGHTS precede Government, and justify whatever retaliatory force is necessary for their defence. It's a matter of strategy, I guess, unless you really believe that some deity substitute has conferred these rights on all of us. There's something to be said for creating the myth that these rights exist as a way of defending ourselves against their being taken away. That could work. You might be able to convinced me to shut up about it not being true if it would advance the cause. I have thought that we're safest if we understand that that a majority of bozos can take away the rights we value most dearly so that we can be on guard against them. Hard to say which is the better strategy. Karen

To: Solon who wrote (5244)	2/9/2001 11:52:24 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Morning Solon Welcome back to si. I read your post and couldn't help thinking, what a valiant effort it was, to pull a rabbit out of your hat. Unfortunately like our friend Bullwinkle, the thing that emerges is not a rabbit at all, but a monster. In this case the monster is called abortion, but it has many other names as well. You rightly pointed out the inconsistency of Karin's position, but you failed to see how it was fatal to your own as well. The point I am trying to get at (amongst several) is: If you are the only arbiter of fairnessthen, from your belief that your policy is moral, it follows that what makes a policy moral is your say-so (for you), and my say-so (for me)..and so on. This denies the meaning of morality, which involves relationship. Nothing is immoral to one on a deserted island, unless there is a God present. "Unless there is a God" Well there's the rub isn't it. I agree with your assessment of the pro-abortionist failure to come to grips with the fact that every abortion ends a human life. I fail to see how your attempt to justify the same, by shifting to the imagined, firmer ground of " reason and freedom as having fundamental moral value......."escapes from the same criticism that you leveled at K. "Nothing is immoral.......Unless there is a God" Certainly if "morality...involves relationship" then it follows that, "fundamental moral values" must account for fundamental relationships. If God does not exist then you are back to just your say so, as against mine. Unborn children, being helpless and not having the ability to express their say so, are simply at the whim of, and at the mercy of, the stronger. As you quoted, "To preach morality is easy, to give it foundation is hard" Apart from God there can be no foundation that is not simply arbitrary. You have failed to demonstrate why we should be Free to kill an unborn child simply because it is dependent on the mother for it's existence. I watched an interesting discussion on the tube the other night. It was dealing with the Brits allowing the experimentation with, and on, human clones. The Scientists defended their Right to conduct these experiments based on the fact that no embryo was kept alive more than fourteen days. The ethicist on the panel said they had investigated the rational, for the fourteen day period and had concluded it to be totally arbitrary. I found myself wondering, if fourteen days was ok, why not fourteen weeks? If fourteen weeks was fine why not forty weeks? Hey if one minute before birth might be alright then what about one minute after? Finally if one minute after is allowed why not one day or week or year. We could use kids with severe disabilities . After all they slipped through the cracks anyway. We should have aborted them when we had the chance. Prisoners might be a great source of excess body parts and a testing ground for new drugs. Just think of all the progress. Ain't Science wonderful????? We (humans) have an almost infinite capacity to rationalize any evil we can imagine, and we use Freedom and Reason to do it. Greg