SI
SI
discoversearch

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: E who wrote (7119)3/2/2001 11:03:24 AM
From: Neocon  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 82486
 
It is unnecessary to drag in the soul. When the gametes unite, it is a human organism at a particular stage of development, an individual that, if able to gestate uninterruptedly, will come out as an infant in swaddling. Thus, it is a human being. Only someone who believes in "ensoulment", and thinks he can pinpoint it, could think it disposable without qualms......



To: E who wrote (7119)3/2/2001 12:08:04 PM
From: cosmicforce  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 82486
 
The only way you can evade the distinction is by saying that a holy soul, postulated by your religion, enters at one of the stages described in cosmic's link.

Really -- I wasn't being facetious. I really would like to know at what point the logic of the pro-Life camp declares that this "human being" becomes human. There are a lot of steps and clearly for those who don't think this is an issue of degree, there must be some place where it isn't human and some place where it is.

My argument is that the only allowable BC method would be a barrier if we want no chance that a fertilized egg doesn't get prevented from implanting in the uterine wall. But this happens ALL THE TIME in nature. Why aren't they equally vocal about ending the natural carnage? If 2/3 of all children were stillborn or without arms, wouldn't the religious Right want to stop it? Probably 2/3 of all conceptions end with an "abortion" using their definition.