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 (6418)	2/24/2001 10:18:11 AM
From: cosmicforce	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

We have laws that protect animals, yet we compassionately destroy them. You can't beat your animal with a 2x4 yet if the animal runs away from the abuse, we destroy it. Compassion can be expressed as a broad pallet of actions with often contradictory methods whose unifying principle is the reduction of the overall level of suffering. I put abortion into the compassionate destruction category. Most people agree it is better to spay and neuter than to destroy animals. I think prevention of pregnancy is better than termination of it. However, both have their place in a compassionate society.

To: Solon who wrote (6418)	2/24/2001 6:07:16 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

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. The rational moral reason at least in cases that the fetus was not conceived from rape, is that the woman participated in causing the fetus to exist in its dependent state. 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. The woman does have a right to her own body, but not to destroy some one else's body. Tim