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 : Stockman Scott's Political Debate Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SOROS who wrote (53023)	8/8/2004 2:47:50 AM
From: denizen48	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

You ever hear about the death row scandal in Illinois? It's OK to blow up cities & civilians in the name of liberty, OK to give mediocre healthcare & schooling, just don't touch that embryo! You're wrapping yourself in the bible, hypocrite.

To: SOROS who wrote (53023)	8/8/2004 4:46:43 AM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 89467

The befuddled argument comes from the subtle mental switch that has to be made in the categories you state. If it "befuddles" you to distinguish between killing a person who broke the law* by killing another human being and killing a baby who has broken no law or hurt anyone, then ....* Notice you have to emphasise "broke the law". Now whether it is the lawbreaker or state doing the killing, a human being has been killed. Obviously, it is not the act of killing a human itself that you find wrong. That means you pin this moral argument on the changing legal system. The legal system finds abortion permitted. You might look for a language class so that you can use words such as "life" and "killing" in consistent ways. The internal inconsistencies should convince you that the subject is not nearly as simple as you would hope. TP TP