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 (6291)	2/21/2001 12:05:46 PM
From: cosmicforce	Respond to of 82486

RE:A RIGHT is a FREEDOM: It is NOT an obligation. This is why I say again: The problem is, they cannot both have the RIGHT to life. They can each have the indulgence of society, but they cannot both have the RIGHT--because it involves contradiction. My RIGHT to life and liberty DOES NOT require or obligate you to donate your liver; Nor does it enfranchise me to forcibly remove yours. We are separate persons. You have no claim upon me, and vice versa. That is a good argument, Solon.

To: Solon who wrote (6291)	2/21/2001 12:21:44 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I thought this was covered in Roe/Wade I have opinions about Supreme Court decisions and I have opinions that might be effected by the arguments in supreme court decisions but my opinions are not decided by the results of supreme court decisions. I do not consider the US Supreme Court to be infallible. If the foetus was a person, as you are attempting to define it, then it would have equal RIGHTS to every other person including the mother. The mother would then owe this other person nothing. None of us in society are required to donate our organs, our bone marrow, our oxygen, our anything--to any other person in society. We are not even required to give blood to another--not a fingernail, not a hair. If another tries to eat us or to take our blood or oxygen--we are entitled to take defensive measures. This is what being a person is about. It is about being SEPARATE from others--about being FREE from others. Except for the case of rape the woman voluntarily participated in an activity which could cause a situation where this person would be dependent on her. If I owned a boat you would not have the right to demand that I let you ride in it, but if I offered you a ride I would not have the right to insist that you get off immediately once we reached deep shark infested waters. It might be my boat, but I caused you to be in it. You can argue then about women who where raped but I don't think you would be in favor of outlawing abortion in cases where the woman was not raped. Tim

To: Solon who wrote (6291)	2/21/2001 4:58:59 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"We are separate persons. You have no claim upon me, and vice versa." We are separate persons and we both have a right to life. I cannot willy nilly take action against your right to live, true enough. On the other hand we live in an ordered society in which we have the responsibility to care for the well being of other creatures, including our fellow human creatures. Some say we have been granted a dominion in this regard. I agree. Then, I do have a claim upon you and vice versa. I claim my right to have you behave responsibly regarding my well being. Rights have no clear definition without being weighted in responsibility. When you try to disentangle responsibility from from rights, you end up with some vague web of entitlements. Very messy endeavor.