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: Suma who wrote (53049)	8/8/2004 5:32:17 PM
From: SOROS	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 89467

"When government regulates our lives . . ." True, but when an action is simply immoral and wrong, it is the responsibility of government to regulate that the action is illegal. If someone has a child who is horribly deformed and will have no life as far as society can tell, why can the parents not simply give the child an overdose and have a merciful killing? No one can change the fact that in order for a child to be born, it has to be a "part" of a woman's body for a time. That should not give the woman the right to end another human's life during that time. Again, common sense and simple intelligence should rule the law. If the mother's life is in danger, it seems fair that the more mature human makes the decision on who lives and who dies. If a woman is raped, it seems logical that since she (and the child in a sense) are both the victims of a crime, she should be given the choice about having some authority to deal with the results of that crime. But why, just because a woman is stupid, or non-caring, or whatever, should she have the right to "choose" life or death for another human being? What if life were created in test tubes only. Once a life was conceived, should there not be laws to protect that human from conception? If someone drops something extra in the test tube and taints the embryo, then, like rape, the "parents" should be able to make a decision on that life. But simply because a dead beat man or a lazy woman does not want the child, should not the law stop them from ending the life? It's not just bedrooms in jeopardy here. It is someone's LIFE. How can anyone not have a problem with taking this innocent life, but feel it is so very wrong to electrocute a serial killer? This logic is completely insane to me. I remain, SOROS