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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Gordon A. Langston who wrote (144589)	5/11/2001 12:42:53 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

"The majority's reasoning is inconsistent and extremely hard to justify," Brown said. "A decision of this magnitude requires clarity and direction, and not a patchwork quilt woven from disparate statutes, constitutional provisions and Supreme Court decisions." Well, this is nothing but another dipswitch who can't understand that the problem here has nothing to do with the Arkansas decision but rather with the "disparate statutes" and the numskulls who made them. This decision is based on better reasoning and is more consistent with the facts of life than most of what has come out of our courts in the last 30 years. And given an impartial judge I could prove it too. Folks just love to make distinctions between "humaness" and "personhood," claiming humaness is a biologically quantifiable fact but "personhood" is based in philosophy and religion. Yet they adhere to law that relies upon "personhood," as if they have embraced the philosophical/religious meaning for purposes of law. Ridiculous. The fact is, in law there is no religious definition, no God, no nothing. Biology is all we have, and that biology tells us that the unborn fetus is a human on the smooth continuum of development-- just as we are.