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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (479420)	10/21/2003 3:07:32 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Once the chemistry of a woman reveals a life within. A life grows within. That is the earliest most technically advanced rational point in natural birthing. In artificial where one can identify a fertilized egg. The ovum should also be regarded as life. An effort made to implant the ovum is a life saving action. It may result in a natural death. But in general I personally believe that artificial insemination is wrong.

To: DuckTapeSunroof who wrote (479420)	10/21/2003 3:38:23 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The "rights of citizenship" are irrelevant because such rights can validly be granted and denied by whim. Mexicans can validly be denied American citizenship - the Dutch or Irish as well. That is not at issue here and we ought not confuse the rights of citizenship with the rights of humanity. All humans have the natural right to Life, Freedom and the Pursuit of Happiness. That is self-evident because the very definition of humanity requires ever present life and freedom to express. Should we remove either, then we reduce the biological human to something less than what he is in nature. In such cases we sin against nature. So therefore the issue concerns when humanity first begins. When does the logic containing a unique, self-expressing human first take space in our reality? It is quite clear that such beings first exist not one second before conception and not one second afterward. They begin at the very moment of conception and self-express the natural logic that comprise them only at conception and beyond. I part ways with Tom on the nature of the ovum. Clearly the ovum in itself is not human self-expression. The logic there is incomplete. To put it another way, complete human definition does not exist in the ovum. No human anywhere on earth began as an ovum. All humans, everywhere first existed as a self-expressing conceptus consisting of the fundamental biological components of exactly one man and exactly one woman. That self-expressing heterosexual conceptus is us. Nothing prior to it is us. Since true contraception only aims to prohibit the start of a particular instance of self-expressing humanity, it quite obviously does not murder a human. It is philosophically "anti-human" to be sure because all humans depend upon the reality that contraception aims to prohibit. For this reason, we have no right to force society to pay for and support contraception in any way. Members of society have the natural right to discriminate against contraception. But contraception is not murder-- the literal destruction of extant human innocence. Abortion is clearly murder.