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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190027)	6/8/2004 10:44:20 AM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

Latest poll: gallup.com

To: TigerPaw who wrote (190027)	6/8/2004 6:14:17 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575981

There are lots of changes. There is no real reason to pick one over another. In your opinion, which is not one that I share. The first change is to produce something that has the potential to become an adult. Before that change you don't have anything that can reasonably be called a human life. After that change you might get a lot of disagreement on whether or not you have a human life but the fact that the question even has to be raised is significant. There are of course other important points that other people choose but your choice of when the cord is cut isn't a particularly good one, unless you have a reason for it that I haven't been able to fathom. I guess your reason is that at that point the child is no longer physically attached and directly dependent on the mother, but many people are dependent on others, some are even attached to others and few would say that it is then ok to kill them. If you have some other justifications for picking this point I'd be happy to read them. Many of the later changes are entirely irrelevant to the question. If a child never went through puberty he or she would never become an adult but few people would say it is ok to "abort" a 9 year old. Tim