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: TimF who wrote (3436)	12/17/2002 2:30:00 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 7720

"...or that they are over prioritizing one moral principle at the expense of another..." This is a point worth exploring. I am not sure that this is ever true at the essential level. However, I am willing to keep an open mind toward arguements to the contrary. I suppose choosing the lesser of two evils might be an argument: Like hating violence but standing against someone who would otherwise assault a helpless or innocent victim. But that seems logically parted from the current discussion. Pregnancies are risky, there is no doubt about that. The health, safety, and even survival of the mother is always an issue. Caring for the mother in her situation definitely touches on the essential morality of reproductive events and circumstances. Great concern should be taken in each and every particular case to make decisions that are good and sound. When I entered this discussion it looked like we were arguing about whether or not to consider the pregnant woman, a Mother with Child or a receptacle with an invading parasite. This to me does not have the ring of prioritizing moral principles (if there is even such a thing).