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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (479453)	10/21/2003 4:42:00 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	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. >>> OK, when do the 'rights of humanity' confer? So therefore the issue concerns when humanity first begins. >>> Exactly: as I said, throughout vast expanses of history, and across numerous cultures and religions, this concept of "personhood" was usually equated to when the "soul" was believed to enter the body. Some societies said 'at birth', some believed 'upon manhood' (puberty, or upon passing some 'rite of manhood'), some believed 'upon quickening' (when a fetal heartbeat could first be detected), others when viability outside the womb was possible... and some now believe 'upon conception' (even before a fertilized egg implants in the uterine lining). 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. >>> Eh? What 'logic'? The logic of the food-chain? The physical laws of the Universe, of biochemistry? What 'logic'? That last paragraph doesn't seem 'clear' to me at all. I part ways with Tom on the nature of the ovum. Clearly the ovum in itself is not human self-expression. >>> Why? It has a full set of chromosomes.... The logic there is incomplete. >>> Eh? Can you state this 'logic'? To put it another way, complete human definition does not exist in the ovum. >>> Can you state - in words - this 'human definition'? Seems like that would be an important thing to know. No human anywhere on earth began as an ovum. >>> Actually, I'm pretty sure we can trace our existence back in a clear unbroken line of life, all the way to the origins of life... but I 'grok' what you are saying: an individual's unique existence (usually) is circumscribed by their genetic inheritance from both mother AND father... X and Y. All humans, everywhere first existed as a self-expressing conceptus >>> What the hell is 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. >>> Not true in all animal species (and scientists tell us it will not necessarily be true for all future times) but, we'll let that one stand for now. Since true contraception only aims to prohibit the start of a particular instance of self-expressing humanity, >>> Er, you mean: 'prevent a child'. it quite obviously does not murder a human. >>> Some say it does - it comes down to how they define what is a human with civil rights. Of course, there are many different modus for contraception.... It is philosophically "anti-human" to be sure because all humans depend upon the reality that contraception aims to prohibit. >>> Not so. We depend (as a species, not as individuals) upon the continuation of our species... but all things have their times, and no species has ever existed forever. By you own argument: anything that threatened the continuation of our species (every potential mother aborting, or using 100% effective contraception, or a nuclear war with no survivors), even over-population and resource exhaustion (caused by births exceeding the Earth's 'carrying capacity' would meet your definition of 'threatening our existence'. For this reason, we have no right to force society to pay for and support contraception in any way. >>> Taxes - BY DEFINITION - force people to pay for things they might not agree with. Members of society have the natural right to discriminate against contraception. >>> In their personal lives, of course. But contraception is not murder-- the literal destruction of extant human innocence. >>> So, you do not imbue an implanted early stage fertilized egg (a blastocyte) with full rights of 'humanhood' or 'citizenship'? Abortion is clearly murder. >>> To some societies, at some times....