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: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 4:23:36 PM
From: alan w	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

In the second place, an unwanted child is worse than an abortion, worse for the child, worse for the mother, and worse for the society. I might add "all in your humble opinion". Otherwise I want to talk to you about the market for the next ten years. alan w

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 5:40:41 PM
From: Mana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

TP, "an unwanted child is worse than an abortion" At least an unwanted child has a chance at life. To make it what they want. Abortion offers no chance, only death. -Mana

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 6:02:58 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

an unwanted child is worse than an abortion, worse for the child, worse for the mother, and worse for the society. the mighty tiggerpuss has spoken. He did not say anything, but then that never stopped him. You are one selfish loser.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 10:35:08 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 769667

TP, I feel a need to respond to your posts, Message 16073365 Message 16069810 Several people found them offensive. I found them interesting. Before I do, I want to tell you that I respect your intelligence. I have read some of your posts on other threads. I know you have a high IQ. I also want you to know that I don't intend to ridicule you or your convictions. I know that if you were really a moron, you would stop reading right about here. But we both know you are not a moron. I quote you in italics: Self awareness sets humans apart, well humans and chimps and orangatangs [sic] all have it The monkey thing appears to be an afterthought, so let's ignore it and just say - self-awareness is in fact a determining factor. It's what christains [sic] used to equate with souls Uh...no. Your education in the area is weak; therefore it would be better to drop that line of argument until you know more about it. You'll just piss the "christains" off, and that does not help your argument. I suspect that at some point in the past, you became disenchanted with some particular dogma and made some personal conclusions. I don't fault you for that, you are not alone. What is human becomes a definition involving DNA or self awareness. Partially correct. Let's say as a working hypothesis that it might be both, not one or the other. (working hypothesis, hang on...) A human baby does not possess the ability to recognize self at birth This is empirically false. Using the Scientific Method, you can't use it as an underlying principle for your argument. I won't bother to get into the proofs, because you can find them if you care to look. They are strewn around with a bunch of crap that is screwball, but what else is new in the World of Science? A couple of hundred years ago, guys died for suggesting the planet wasn't flat. All sorts of cells possess the DNA to become a human No argument here, we already got that, that's a given. The reason I support birth as the milestone for legal purposes is that it is easily recognizable and it's early enough that even the most precocious infants are still not self aware Oops. You've based your "support" on a false premise. Your wording ["support"] implies that you don't actually have a solid scientific reason in the first place. I say this with all due respect to you as a scientist. If I asked you if you "supported" the Law of Conservation of Energy, you would probably chuckle at me, yes? Abortion should be avoided! ...an unwanted child is worse than an abortion, worse for the child, worse for the mother, and worse for the society Not actually germane to your argument. More of a "population control" argument based on personal and subjective criteria. In other words, if there were only one million people on the planet, your argument would change, so let's just skip it and move on. We're left with two things: 1. Self-awareness sets humans apart from other life forms. 2. Human beings are defined by DNA. Your argument is based on the assumption that self-awareness and DNA structure are married to each other in one particular case (or a few)...and it appears that you might be arguing that they are identical. I humbly submit to you that these two data do not conflict with each other at all if you separate them. Not only that, but it just might make everything else make more sense. It's the idea of a human being having a spiritual nature - essence - soul - the word (and definition, curiously) changes somewhat depending on who you are talking to, where you happen to be, and what year it is. The concept is an ancient one, going back way before Christianity existed. There is a rumor floating around that references to reincarnation were removed from the Bible at one point in the past. This idea of reincarnation was around in China, in India, and lots of other places a long time ago, and it has never died. (sorry, I couldn't help it) Your assertion that a newborn baby is not "self-aware" would bring a smile from more than one person on this planet, not the least of which is the Dalai Lama, Tenzin Gyatso, the spiritual and temporal Leader of the Tibetan people... ...but again, let's just stick to a working hypothesis; self-awareness and DNA do not necessarily have to be the same thing to define a human being. Let me put it in a very specific way for you. Arguing that the legal definition of the death of a human being's body one day prior to his birth and one day afterwards is determined by the act of him moving from one environment to another is not logical, and makes you appear foolish, because there is another more logical and essentially simple conclusion that can be deduced from the evidence of what exactly makes you or me different from a crab or a tree or a boa constrictor. You are left with only one logical question at this point, which is "Where is the empirical evidence you have mentioned, exactly?" Good question. I asked myself the same thing 34 years ago. I can tell you this: it is most assuredly not in your DNA.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 10:41:16 PM
From: SecularBull	Respond to of 769667

Who the hell are you to decide what is "worse" for those children? You arrogance is appalling. ~SB~

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160558)	7/13/2001 11:51:50 PM
From: Little Joe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

Tiger: "an unwanted child is worse than an abortion, worse for the child, worse for the mother, and worse for the society" Wow!!! couldn't let it pass. My daughter is adopted. I can tell you that my wife and I and our family in no way feel that way about her. I went to elementry school at a school that serviced the local orphanage. I have kept in touch with most of my classmates. Almost all have done well. You see, if we place such little value on these kids your observation will be true (self fulfilling prophecy) But if we cherish them as members of the human race you will always be wrong. These kids can an will be valuable to our society. Little joe