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: thames_sider who wrote (37039)	11/15/2001 8:05:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

This might be justifiable if those requiring the fruition were required to care for the newborn, and pay all its costs, and spend their time on its upkeep... so pay up or shut up. If it was legal to kill newborns or one year olds the same argument could be made against people who where for making it illegal to kill them. If I am unable or unwilling to pay for the cost to raise other peoples children that does not mean that they should be allowed to be killed, nor does it mean that I have no right to speak against killing them. Tim

To: thames_sider who wrote (37039)	11/15/2001 8:59:59 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Thames, I totally accept the criticism that it's unfair to throw stones at pregnant women when you are highly unlikely to become pregnant yourself, as in my case. I definitely live in a glass house in this respect. As to equating a fetus with a parasitic growth ... I'm just not going to touch that one. The only thing I am "demanding," as it were, is that the rights of a fetus be given some acknowledgement, especially when they are viable human beings that could survive on their own if they were delivered prematurely. The thing that bothers me most about the current abortion situation, is that so many are performed for no better reason than the convenience of the expectant mom. I think that this just trivializes life too much. JC

To: thames_sider who wrote (37039)	11/16/2001 7:54:31 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

RE:in the other, a growth parasitic on the host for blood, oxygen, nutrients. Here is part of the definition of a parasite from a medical dictionary: A parasite cannot live independently. Since babies cannot live independently for quite some time after birth(even over twenty years in some cases in the USA!), that means they are still parasites by the definition that they cannot "live independently". So, the logical conclusion to your argument is that it should be OK to kill any human that cannot live independently, which would include physically and mentally retarded people(does the word Nazi come to mind?). How about people on welfare? Do we extend the killing of parasites to include them? The origin of the word parasite is from Greece where a parasite was a professional dinner guest, so does not have to be attached to other living things, but just dependent on them. How about meat eaters? I guess they could be considered parasites too. Some politicians might fit the category too.