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: Chris land who wrote (16761)	6/14/2001 6:53:35 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 82486

You know it is possible to condemn Hitler and think he is horrible- and yet believe that the Germans had every right to install him (as I believe). The point where they lost the right to do his horrible bidding was the point where they began venturing outside their borders. It is a completely consistent way to look at things. You can think abortions are awful, and yet defend the rights of people to CHOOSE them- your God, after all, wants to let people have all the awful choices they can think of. It really isn't his business that they do awful things- he'll just weigh and sort them later. By giving people choices- even choices to do awful things- you are probably promoting the cause of your invisible and possible imaginary friend in his or her quest to give everyone free will. I hope you will immediately become a supporter of abortion rights, in order to further the cause of your religion.

To: Chris land who wrote (16761)	6/14/2001 10:06:21 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Do you know how STUPID that just sounded? ...I never defended Hitler, I just defended his right to arm the NAZI party in order for them to carry out his orders. You are so right. Why did you say it? Get a grip, Chris. Having a right to your body does not entail the right to compel others to laud your choices, either on a cate blanche, or an an individual basis. Now, I have spilled lots of ink in setting out my belief in the property rights to ones own body--the right to exist if you will. I am not going to cover all that ground again. If you believe that a woman does not have the right to exist (i.e. the right to her body), then it is fruitless for us to discuss the matter. Your time is better spent determining by votes or by guns (they achieve the same results), just who does have authority and rights to her body--and to what uses it may be put. On the unlikely chance that you agree with me that her body is hers, then the question arises as to whether everything from the tip of her nose to her ideas to her islets of langerhans actually ARE her body and not someone elses. I believe the fact is self revealing, although some hold a contrary opinion. Certainly, we know that parts of what we consider her body can be removed, and can live elsewhere. I have even read articles claiming that the heart, liver, etc. have a type of consciousness which remains with them in the new host. Does this mean they can be forcibly removed, or kept alive at the expense of the subject? I don't think so. But society clearly needs some fundamental axioms to stake the future of individuals on if the existence of individuals by right is to remain beyound the vagaries of the collective vote.