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 (6020)	2/16/2001 1:21:22 PM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

These slippery slope arguments have no satisfactory solution, IMO. It is a lot like defining where the beach is! The beach is where the sand meets the sea, but that margin is not a single margin but a moving margin. It is also a margin that changes (depending upon the scale). It has been pointed out that the coast of a country, England let's say, is many times bigger for an ant than it is for a person. This is a cornerstone of fractal and chaos theory. I don't think there will be a satisfactory to all parties in the abortion issue. The inconsistencies on both arguments are numerous. A "right to life" is a stronger philosophical argument, IMO. But then I believe in mercy killing. I used the example of finding a badly wounded fellow on a battlefield. Their state is so dire that to allow them continued suffering is unconscionable. However, THEY have the right to choose, not me. Morally, I have to listen to them if they are conscious and coherent. If they are incoherent, I have to make a judgement. Legally, I'm never allowed to take their life, even asked. Period. What is moral and what is legal are clearly at odds. In this case the saving of the life is immoral, IMO. I don't want to see FURTHER restriction of abortion because I have two girls and have seen the harm pregnancy has caused underage girls I knew of in high school. There is already protection of infanticide, and late term abortion. Very few people are willing to say no abortion, ever. So we persist in hammering on it as a case by case situation. The right-to-lifers would have a philosophically stronger position if they were actively working to prevent miscarriage and promoting birth control with the verve and vehemence that they produce in overturning Roe v. Wade. However, this doesn't seem to be what they do. So, we have an inconsistency. The situation is much like the rift between those who believe in God and those who don't. Ultimately the two groups should agree to different standards. As soon as they mix, though, there will be an unstable "boundary layer" between the two positions. I have little hope of a short term change of the public mind. People have forgotten how people had to do back-street abortions in their desperation and ended up dying painfully of sepsis or were permanently harmed in other ways.