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 (18749)	7/19/2001 11:32:17 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

It has always been the case that you want to limit any discussion of abortion to the very earliest days of conception, Yet you seem to support a woman's right to kill her baby for any reason,(for instance, sex selection or Downs syndrome, or just want to party) at any time up until and including the very act of birth. Using Latin terms to describe yet-born human beings, has no bearing on their "actual" humanity. Upon fertilization you have a new and distinctly human, being. It seems you are the one that does not understand the meaning of potential, versus actual. You claim to use these terms to avoid sentimentality. Well of course it is easier to dispose of tissue or cells, just like blowing your nose, than it is to consider that you are in fact causing the painful death of your own child. That's not sentiment, that's the reality that many women and their spouses have come to realize they have assented to. They have caused the death of their own child. When a couple is expecting a child they always say we're having a baby, unless they want to kill it then it's a blob of cells, or some other cold and callous term. Does the life that is growing and developing inside the womb change because it's called either? NO! "An argument for the RIGHTS of human growth should not rely on attributes such as the number of cells, the size of the human growth, and so forth." This is precisely the question you continue to beg. What constitutes a human being????????? Why are you arguing at a cellular level if "RIGHTS" do not depend on it? You have continually used insulting and derogatory terms for the early stages of human development. WHY? It seems more a ploy to desensitize and cover the ugly truth, that abortion at any stage, is the taking of an innocent Human life.

To: Solon who wrote (18749)	7/20/2001 1:14:20 AM
From: 2MAR$	Respond to of 82486

It would be a complete approach if the rights of all life were respected and considered sacred .... not just human rights .... but heaven is just for humans, and only humans are "saved" according to some ....the rest of the creatures in the world are just for decoration ? If one is going to take issue with the rights of a human sperm and egg....one could also just as easily make a case for fully formed animal beings as well. I often wonder why this sacred argument is not taken to encompass all living things ? To a more sacred , logical conclusion about the world in which we all live. All "human" life is sacred ? Or all life is sacred ? * Interesting that man descended from a small little possum like creature some 60million years ago after the meteor strike led to the downfall of the dinosaurs.... or something fantastic and fabulous like that . And for longer ages than the duration of 1000 Roman Empires , men knew that animals were kindred -spirits too....no Jesus or civilization without them . To discuss Human rights without discussing Animal rights is to leave the question incomplete . Or as Abe Lincoln once reflected : " I am in favor of animal rights as well as human rights. That is the way of a total human being " If you want to teach respect for human-life , it may start by teaching respect for animals. We live in a society where animals by the 10's of millions are born & live their entire lives in small confined cages and pens . A nice comfy life to be sure... ;-)

To: Solon who wrote (18749)	7/20/2001 10:25:13 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Solon, I was not misleading or misdirecting. In our conversation we were talking about the rights of and the moral status of the thing that is aborted. You then respond "still act as if every unwanted smudge of sperm should be forced into existence" and "but your sperm don't thunk". I guess you could have been writing about something else, I can't read minds, but if so then 1 - Your post was misleading and not directly relevant to the point at hand, and 2 - You did not make it clear that you were talking about about something else, if you change the subject you should give some indication. That whole sub branch of our conversation was about the moral status and rights (or lack there of) of the thing that is aborted, in other words the fetus or embryo. Is a zygote, or a morula...equal to a fetus?? A zygote or a morula is not what is killed in an induced abortion. Also neither is the same as a smuge of sperm. but you then added "blob" of sperm in order to make it appear that I might have been alluding to a blastocyst stage of development. I added "blob of sperm" because I thought that was what you said. In reality you said "smuge of sperm". I admit this was a misquote, but it doesn't change the meaning. When I used the wrong term (blob instead of smuge) it wasn't a direct quote. When I did make a direct quote it was correct. If you are so upset about the difference between a "blob" and a "smuge" then I apologize for misleading people in to thinking you said "blob". Only a fool or a dishonest person could confuse the description of "a smudge of sperm" with a developed fetus--only a fool or a dishonest person. But since we were talking about developed fetuses and embryos your use of the term "smudge of sperm" was either foolish or dishonest, or atleast careless. Especially--since I was gracious enough to fully explain the matter! Your explanation is that you were talking about a zygote which is 1 - not subject to induced abortion so it is not what we were talking about and 2 - not a sperm or a smudge of sperm. Tim