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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3429)	12/16/2002 10:49:04 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

The Constitution does not address the difference between robbery and burglary, nor between murder and homicide, because those are not topics germane to its purpose. The silence means exactly nothing. And so it is with abortion law. The point is that birth has not, until recently, been the divide for purposes of law throughout the nation. The salient qualifier is "at all times, in all places", as if birth were an obvious "bright line". There is no suggestion that the sperm and the egg are themselves human organisms, since they lack the requisite number of chromosomes. Until conception, a human organism does not exist. On your account, opposition to infanticide would be just as much a "religious" position. After all, there is no person, that is, an infant has no personality, we merely respect the fact that something has occurred that should not be undone, regarding the fully formed infant as a person, even though lacking elementary self- awareness or discernment of its environment, or the ability to act with true volition. Indeed, we generally consider it more horrible to kill a baby than to kill an adult, even though the adult has more actually to lose, because the baby is so innocent and defenseless. "Parasite" vs breathing has nothing to do with the question of whether it is human. It only has to due with means of respiration and ingestion. Or do you think that we cease to be human if we put on scuba gear, because it alters somewhat our method of breathing? I do not think all of the other choices are arguable. I have no "give" except when it is a question of the first trimester. I think that people who support late term abortions, absent a serious health crisis for the mother, are incapable of serious moral reasoning. Kissing etc. is irrelevant to the question of when to regard the pre- born as a human being. I told you, I am in no position to impose anything, I can only persuade a significant number of people to vote a certain way. But even if I were imposing, I have no more qualms about that than I would imposing my view of personhood as regards slaves on the South.........

To: Lane3 who wrote (3429)	12/16/2002 7:58:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Before conception we have a human sperm and a human egg. Once they hook up we have a human embryo. The difference must be of at least some significance because we have a word for the result--embryo. If things pan out, that embryo will become a person and maybe a citizen. The egg and sperm who stay home are human. The embryo created by venturesome eggs and sperm is human. Being human is not the issue. Being A human is the issue. The earliest rational point to consider that you have a human is conception. The latest currently socially and legally acceptable point is at birth. The seperate sperm and the egg don't enter in to it. It is not rational to consider them to be a human, and the argument that they are never had any strong support at any point in history. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (3429)	12/17/2002 4:39:32 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

"But I think you should feel uncomfortable arguing to impose your religiously based, personal, moral judgment on others." I have noticed that Neocon's moral judgement is based primarily on a philosophy of life. One that is founded in principle acquired by a study of justice, morality, personal introspection, religious text, education, culture, and history. It appears that he has sought and found confirmation for his points of views from various sources that he considers credible. I have probably left out a few major influences but the point is, that it is not a religious base apart from the overall personality that forms his perspective. Further, as far as I can see, he has no authority, right, or might to enforce his moral judgements onto others. Why do you feel you have the right to discount perspectives on morality simply because they could be reflected by religious doctrine?