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: moby_dick who wrote (165186)	7/27/2001 3:05:48 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

I hope you do not mind my inserting a few comments here: 1) For purposes of the criminal law, society's interest is asserted, not an individual interest. Thus, if society decided that aborting a human organism damaged the concept of the sanctity of innocent life, and contributed to social degradation, it would have an interest in curtailing the practice. Further, the right of privacy implied in the Constitution is by no means absolute, as it can be easily violated with a warrant obtained through due process of law. Thus, the premise that the state can have no legitimate interest in the regulation of abortion in the first trimester, and the assertion of such a high bar of privacy, is bogus, and Roe v. Wade should be overturned, and the question remanded to state legislatures, where it belongs. 2) Either there is a moral order to the universe, or there is not. If there is not, a universalist morality can still be constructed on the basis of human fulfillment, in the same way that we use the concept of health normatively. Otherwise, it is simply a matter of taste, and the various "moralities" that develop are incommensurable. If there is a moral order to the universe, then man has dominion, for the simple reason that he is the creature capable of controlling his environment and domesticating other animals. If morality is based on a notion of human fulfillment, man has dominion, because the ultimate goal is the humanization of his environment. Only in a morality without rational basis does man not have dominion........

To: moby_dick who wrote (165186)	7/27/2001 3:07:04 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

My position, though, is simple: I am uninterested in theorizing about when the embryo becomes "ensouled", or even in pressing any point about a soul, both of which depend on a theological point of view that is not relevant to the secular law. I do not care to speculate about "personhood" either, since the infant has no real personality, but is bombarded with largely unsorted sensory data, and is reflexively reactive, rather than having any self- conception, and yet we widely agree that infanticide is wrong. Once conception occurs, a unique organism exists with the complete genetic code, and it will, uninterrupted, grow into a recognizable infant. Therefore it is a human organism. It may be a potential person, or a potential infant, but it is an actual human being at a particular state of development and dependency. Additionally, I do not care about sentience as a criterion. I would not say that it was right to kill a comatose patient with any real chance of recovery, even with the most painless methods; I do consider it right to operate on people to help them, even though it causes pain; and therefore, the infliction of pain cannot be the criterion of the rightness of wrongness of an act. I do think that the matter should be left to state legislatures, and democratically debated, and I accept the likelihood of differences in regulation. I also would favor leniency in the first term, since confusion is understandable at that point. By the way, I am against the Pill and the IUD because of their abortifacient properties........