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: TimF who wrote (6371)	2/24/2001 6:20:13 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

And your more complex argument was based on the assumption that all moral questions begin with interest and that someone who can not recognize their interest or make a moral choice at the moment is not morally significant and doesn't need to be considered LOL! You're pulling my leg, right? Are we doing this the long way? OK. Yes, the foetus matters to me; Yes, the foetus matters to you; Yes, the foetus matters to a lot of people. We were discussing the foetus, weren't we?? Again, I said that I do not matter to the foetus; You do not matter to the foetus; The age of a carrot does not matter to a foetus. The foetus is not a moral agent. Your body is your property; Your mind is your property. This is the basis of all RIGHTS, and all "rights". Your mind and your body are "FREE". This is a condition of nature in a society of one. It is also a prerequisite for a moral agent with moral judgement. We can only be moral, and live in a moral society, if we acknowledge this primary moral dictum: Your mind and your body are your own property. A person has all these things--including the necessary prerequisites: A separate body, a separate mind--freedom from others. You wish to give qualities to a fetus which it does not possess. Unfortunately, this runs you into contradictions. If you agree that the foetus is not a person, and thus cannot claim rights of a person, then you cede the woman's right to her body. If you claim (against the evidence) that the fetus is a person, then you dig a pit for yourself. The foetus lives off the body and mind of the host. So if the foetus is a person, it follows that people can commandeer body parts, blood, etc. of other people. The foetus has a need. Is this what justifies this violation of human rights? I have needs. I may be entirely faultless in needing a kidney. My kidney malfunction may be wholly adventitious. But I am a person (like the foetus), so there is absolutely no logical, rational, or moral reason why I may not demand that my life be saved by you. Furthermore, about half the world is comprised of females. If they do not have a right to their own bodies--then how dare anyone suggest that the male half of the world DOES. So nobody has any rights. Medical experiments anyone?? Seeing as it may be your voice that changes the way in which society views rights, etc.--I hope you will be prepared to be only as free as the guns you can carry...