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: long-gone who wrote (5867)	2/15/2001 10:26:18 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thankyou for posting that article here. I was aware that all of that was going om and yet I am stunned anyway. I'm not sure who is worse, China for doing it, or us for turning a blind eye, just so we can buy cheap toasters. Amnesty international doesn't come off looking too great either. I wonder if that's because most of their supporters are pro abortion, and their funding would dry up if they came out against it. You would think at the very least, a policy that results in parents killing their baby daughters and dumping their bodies in the streets, might come into question from a group that claims to be at the vanguard of the "HUMAN" rights movement. Money talks, but no one hears the children's screams. Actually God does and He's taking notes. Greg

To: long-gone who wrote (5867)	2/15/2001 10:37:28 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

What is going on in China is horrible. It's so easy for us to close our eyes or say there's nothing we can do about it. Or even that it's their right to choose what is morally right and wrong for them and if they want to follow that practice, that makes it moral. What I found interesting was the observation that these deaths over time insensitize us all to the preciousness of life. This was the basic premise of an excellent New Republic article, back in the days when it was a bastion of liberal thought, on why liberals should oppose abortion. The premise was that once you start down the path of saying that certain stages of human life are okay to destroy you lose the basic principle of respect for human life. Then it becomes a question of not should government allow killing, but which forms of killing are okay and which aren't -- the death penalty, voluntary euthanasia, forced euthanasia of those found a burden on society, forced abortion per China, holocaust, ethnic cleansing -- once you open the door to saying some human lives are of value and some aren't you lose the moral clarity of certaintude and it all becomes a matter of opinion as to where you draw the line. It was a thought-provoking article. I wish now that I had clipped it. It's unusual, IMO, to hear secular liberals being so clear. The human rights movement generally gets tied up in religious trappings so that the pro life position gets tarred with the "religious right" brush, while in fact there are innumerable people of quite liberal persuasion who see the wrong in abortion but tend to be cowed by liberal political correctness to remain silent.