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: tejek who wrote (230227)	4/21/2005 4:55:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573599

re: legal name, a birth date, driver's license and a green card if he's legal. If he did not have any of the above, he would not exist. That isn't true. None of the above give you existence, and the lack of any or all of them does not make you not exist or cease to exist. Its impossible to come to a conclusion re. abortions based on morality. Its quite possible, but of course people come to many different conclusions. "Conclusion" doesn't mean "opinion which everyone shares", or even "opinion which achieves consensus". To try and find the moral common ground on such issues as abortions, the death penality, guns etc. is virtually impossible. Consequently, the only application that makes sense is the law's interpretation done in a logical and scientific manner. The law should be applied of course but we are talking about what the law should be. Science simply doesn't deal with moral questions, or questions about human rights. Those are questions of philosophy, specifically ethics, which is the are of philosophy that deals with moral questions. Logic is a great tool to deal with ethical and other types of philosophical questions, but it is only a tool, it isn't the whole answer. Inductive reasoning is inherently uncertain, and deductive logic requires assumptions. If you start with different assumption you can follow perfect logic and arrive at different conclusions. "I believe in protecting human life and I believe that killing human life without strong and appropriate justification is wrong, more than just wrong it is a transgression against human rights. The fetus is a human life so it should be protected against being killed." Then I take it you're against the death penalty? I'm on the fence about the death penalty. I've moved from one side of the fence to the other but I seem to have settled in the middle. I said "I believe that killing human life without strong and appropriate justification is wrong". The question becomes - "Is there strong and appropriate justification." However the issue is not about the fetus and how cute you might find them. Agreed 100%. The issue has nothing to do with how cute the fetus is or is not, or how much it looks the same as an already born baby. That would be an emotional reason and as I have already stated my opinion rests on ethical principles not emotion. The issue is - Is the fetus a human life with natural rights. That is the core of the issue. If the fetus was universally not considered a human life with natural rights their would be almost no one against legal abortion. If it is considered a human life with rights than the pro-choice position becomes much harder. Basically your opinion on this question determines your final opinion on the overall issue in almost every case. Its about a woman and her right to do with her body what she wants. She is proposing doing something with someone else's body. Just as you don't have a right to use your fist to break my nose, she doesn't have a right to do something with her body that kills someone else's body. Tim