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 (3680)	1/13/2003 11:35:37 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

"Well, we disagree." I am not sure I can identify with the side of this disagreement where you have placed me. Let's see here. First you appear to be saying that "choice" and freedom to choose is a mark of humanity. In that we agree. To choose is human and not only a freedom but unavoidable. To be given the freedom to choose without sanction by others or society at large is not. As a member of humanity our choices inevitably engage our member community. This is also an aspect of humanity. Once engaged, it is an obligation of society to approve, withhold approval, disapprove, or take a neutral stance. For the community at large the default is a neutral stance. At some point the stance is shaken in favor of the well being of individuals and/or a healthy society. It is at this juncture that the debate must be focused. We generally afford one another the "freedom to make our own choices" where those choices have little or no impact on the well being of others. Our disagreement would more likely be around whether or not the choice to abort represents this type of choice. "I recognize that those who believe we must wait for God to take us, no matter that we suffer humbling dehumanization as we wait for death to take us also see it that way." I am pretty sure my side of a disagreement is not represented here. I am firmly convinced that the time place and circumstance of any creature's death is absolutely determined by God. The only concern that I have is whether or not I have any part in the unjust suffering experienced by another creature. This includes the suffering experienced by a pregnant woman. I can easily answer most questions founded on principle as most intelligent persons should be able to do. I do not take individual circumstance lightly. If I look at the extremes of sexual lasciviousness in our society I take a disapproving stance. I do not think it responsible to sanction irresponsible unsafe sex, simply because the adult(s) directly involved choose to behave that way. It is predictable that in condoning such behavior I would be supporting and so contributing to the suffering of these individuals who would likely contract and spread disease among themselves and persons who are less aware of the choices that they have been making. There is a high likelyhood that many abortions of unwanted children would result and that many lives of persons who are incidentally associated with this type of choice would be tragically shattered. I take this stand having studied enough about human motivation to know that many people have an external locus of control. That is, what society says is ok for me, isn't against the law, and feels good, must be good. I am not responsible for my circumsances or the consequences of my actions, society is. Persons with an internal locus of control are more likely to see themselves as responsible for thier circumstances and the consequenses of their actions. Persons with an ELC expect the structure of society to guide them in "right" living. Where problems arrise in their lives they expect society to make it OK. Laws that restrict choices are generally beneficial. These are the people who do very well in the military but fall to pieces in the mainstream. The freedom to choose without the imposition of societal restriction might seem fundamental to a truly autonomous person. However, that is not considerate of persons with an extremely external center of control who often have problems with impulse control as well. There are many other factors to consider such as mental health, maturity, transitory instability, etc. I do not consider such people as having less humanity. In fact, I would consider them to be more interdependant on the community of humanity. I would add that human society has a greater responsibility for providing structural guides for such people. I hope I have blurred the lines you drew as our disagreement. That was my goal.