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: TimF who wrote (229844)	4/18/2005 10:30:50 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573834

"OK someone may have argued 20 years ago on net.abortion that woman should be compelled to get pregnant " Pay attention Tim. The argument then, as now was about at what point does life start. There were a lot that came down hard that if there was the potential for human life, then ending that potential was the equivalent of murder. The rest follows logically because an ovum has the potential for human life, but only realized if fertilized. A human sperm has the potential for human life, but only realized if it gets to an ovum first. If you take Tench's viewpoint that once an ovum is fertilized, then you potentially criminalize every woman who ever took birth control pills because one of the things that progestin(which is in both types of pills, I had that wrong) does is keeps the ovum from implanting, assuming it gets that far. It isn't a strawman argument either. If you are going to use a term from philosophy, at least use it properly. A strawman argument is when a position is concocted and assigned to someone and then demolished. Extrapolating a position to logical conclusions isn't a strawman argument, although the result may not be what was intended by the original framers. But that is their fault for not clearly considering their position. That is known as analysis, I can suggest some books on philosophy if you want to delve into the issue. If you want to take the position that it something is a human life, even if it only has the potential for it, then it is exactly as I have stated. And the situation with the violinist is exactly analogous. In both cases, the host did not voluntarily agree to tying themselves to another for 9 months. How else could you understand it?