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 (5931)	2/15/2001 6:01:04 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm only arguing against the government that you just finished telling me couldn't be completely trusted flexing its muscles and telling you what position to take. That argument has strong appeal for me, since I tend to be very libertarian about government. But, IF you take the position that the unborn baby is as human as you or I and entitled to the same civil rights, I think you have to take the position that killing it is murder, and the government has as much obligation to be involved in "flexing its muscles" as it would be if somebody killed you or me. That's the sticking point that the pro-life movement is unwilling to be honest about. If life begins at conception, abortion except to save the life of the mother (which is defensible killing under the concept of self-defense) is murder, intentional, deliberate murder, and should be punished as such. And few pro-lifers, basically only the most rabid, are willing to go that far. They want a sort of human-but-not-fully-protected status for the fetus where deliberatly killing it is unlawful, but doesn't deserve life in prison or the death penalty for both the mother and the doctor. But they won't say what, and they won't say why a lesser penalty is justified for taking a human life if it really is a human life. Which is another element of the complexity.