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 (37118)	11/16/2001 12:14:11 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't regard it as a human life, at this stage. Therein, of course, is the issue. If you did regard it as a human life, presumably you would think differently about abortion. And if the Catholic Church didn't, presumably they would think differently about abortion. So all the discussion of abortion really has to come down to a simple question: what forms of human genetic material are entitled to consideration as full human lives, and what aren't. And if you have several levels of rights, what are those rights, and why? Everythign else in this discussion is just noise. This whole issue of what forms of human genetic material are entitled to consideration as full human lives is, of course, not new to the human race. At various times, black persons, genetically deformed persons, native Americans, woman, jews, the insane, homosexuals, children, have all been placed in the category of human genetic material not entitled to full human rights. It's just a matter of where one chooses to draw the lines. And that is a moral and, I will say even though some may object, a religious matter. There is no scientifically provable "right" or "wrong" answer to any of those issues. There is no logical or scientific way to prove, for example, that redheaded persons should be entitled to the same human rights as blonde persons. It's a matter of moral judgment starting with each individual and moving up until enough people acccept it that it can be considered a societal norm. I don't think today, for example, a significant majority of Americans would argue that women shouldn't have full human and civil rights. But a significant number of people in other areas of the world would and do. Similarly, there are some areas of the world where Jews are accorded full human rights, and some where there aren't. And there are some areas of the world where children in vitrio are accorded full human rights, and some where there aren't. In no case, is it possible to prove that either side is "right" or "wrong" in any absolute sense. Which is why the abortion will never get settled, though at some point those on one side or the other may constitute a sufficient majority that those with a differing viewpoint will be reduced to fringe status, much the way that groups in the US today who believe that Jews aren't entitled to full human rights exist, but are reduced to fringe status. If you really want this discussion to be anything other than firing at random back and forth without any regard for what the other side says, I think you need to get down to the main issue: what does it mean to be human, and why?

To: thames_sider who wrote (37118)	11/16/2001 12:26:51 PM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

RE:I don't regard it as a human life, at this stage. Well, I guess that's where the main disagreement is. RE:No one should be able to force a woman to bear a child, against her wishes. I never said they should. I just think it is morally wrong to intentionally kill an unborn human. How can you not be repulsed especially by partial birth abortion where the brains are sucked out of a baby which could easily live at the stage it is aborted? Maybe we should eat them too, why waste all that tender flesh? Why draw the line at just killing them? Sorry, I guess my sin is that I love children