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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (76722)	10/11/2004 9:42:15 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793798

You chose a rather painful and shameless argument to advance a cause that you believe to be right. Ethical decisions are always hard, because it is a spectrum, and the question is really where do you draw the line. I think all along, partial birth abortion or last trimester is where most agree it becomes immoral. Most would agree with the morning after pill for the child in your example, I believe that is the law in most states today, so your question is not only cold or specious, it is irrelavant. The fact is, regardless of how evil the rapist is, the embryo can be viewed in two ways : 1. It has no life is not a person and has no rights, in which case, it is a piece of lifeless tissue that can be easily excised. 2. Life begins at inception, and if so, the embryo is a person and has rights, in which case, it is blameless and is neither good nor evil, and certainly does not share the evil of the rapist. Whichever way you choose depends on what you believe. I would leave the choice to take the morning after pill immediately in this case, but I cannot impose that opinion on others the same way you are imposing it. I leave the choice to the girl and her guardians. But I do not feel the need to say my position is morally superior or not to anyone who disagrees. The problem I have with your words is that I believe life is all about painful decisions, and when tragedy strikes as in your example, these decisions are private matters to be dealt with by those affected, not something to be paraded in front of the world, or cheapened by soulless and cold individuals to advance a political point. This is why your example is shameless. Take Christopher Reeve's death. I mourned his passing with all the grief I can for an individual worthy of our caring and support. In fact, I do support embryonic Stem Cell research, but I will not cheapen CR's memory by invoking his name to win an argument. But that changed when I turned on CNN and saw John Kerry talk about Christopher Reeve. Christopher was his friend, Kerry says, and at that moment I am reminded again how cold and artificial Kerry was, to bring out the name of a friend and use his death to win a few voters. This is beyond just political opportunism, it speaks of a hollow core devoid of morals or principles. CR was a marvellous person, a person with a solid core filled with courage and principles, he did not deserve to have his name thrown about with so much abandon for political gains.

To: E who wrote (76722)	10/11/2004 11:03:37 PM
From: unclewest	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793798

Is that why you don't answer any of your own hypothetical questions...even when they are extremely simple? >>>You just made that up!<<< Actually!!!... you made that up!!!!! "Extrememly simple hypothetical question" is how you described your own post. dev.siliconinvestor.com I admire people who, not frozen by fear, can take action in difficult situations. Most very difficult situations offer only difficult solutions. Seldom do they offer an easy way out. Actual difficult situations create substantial emotional stress. The manner in which you are trying to induce that stress here is not, imho, productive to establishing a pre-ordained solution. You are inhibiting discussion in a way that will never advance your cause. You have asked some 20 hypothetical questions in several posts and when challenged chose to answer but one yourself. I take that to mean you do not think the others important enough to get your time and consideration for an answer. And in that case, why would you presume your hypothetical questions (simple or not) are important enough to get our time and consideration? "Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Understanding is not enough; we must do. Knowing and understanding in action make for honor. And honor is the heart of wisdom." Goethe uw