SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (205561)11/29/2001 1:48:51 PM
From: SecularBull  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
Nice gray area you've created there. You logic is based on self-awareness as being the thing that must be attained to be considered to be a part of humanity. Yet, you can't seem to tow the line there, and so you allow us to move that line back to birth. It seems that you can't legitimize your self-awareness argument, so you flip-flop.

~SB~



To: TigerPaw who wrote (205561)11/29/2001 1:48:51 PM
From: SecularBull  Respond to of 769670
 
duplicate post - deleted



To: TigerPaw who wrote (205561)11/29/2001 7:51:07 PM
From: David R  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 769670
 
RE: I recommended as a legal matter, that a infant attain human rights at the time of birth

So we make a completely arbitrary definition of humanity to be at the point of birth, based on nothing other than practicality. During the Senate debate on the Partial Birth Abortion ban, Sen. Kassenbaum was asked what would happen if during the procedure, the baby was accidentally delivered, would it live or die. Her response was that it was between the doctor and the woman. So that even after birth the baby was not "human" unless the woman wanted to keep it.

What reasoning or logic can then be applied when suggesting that a two year old has any more right to live than a new born. At this point life is arbitrary, and the person in power (i.e. mother, doctor, state, etc.) can define life so that anybody can be killed.