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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (20141)	5/20/2005 2:54:27 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 28931

"Unlike you; when I called you a liar, I had the goods to back it up" NO. You had the MOUTH to back it up. You were and you are a liar and an idiot. "What's the difference?" I have told you the difference. In order to honor human RIGHTS...human persons must take precedence over parasitic human cells within the body of another. I wish there was another way but logic will not allow for fetal rights because it creates a contradiction. But logic DOES allow for education about birth control and THAT is the band wagon you should be on. "you have arbitrarily pronounced non person status on the unborn." There is nothing arbitrary about it. The unborn cannot logically have legal personhood. It would create a contradiction. But they may still have value--even as a mindless egg. "Since the overwhelming majority of pregnancies are the consequence of sex that is freely chosen the woman has an obligation not to cause the death of the fetus." That is not an argument. It is simply an absurd statement. All people have the right to ingest ANYTHING into their bodies and to expel ANYTHING from their bodies. Whether or not they were raped has nothing to do with the issue of their rights to their body. Give your head a shake. If you advocate fetal rights...is it only when the woman is sober or when sex is unforced? You gotta get your ducks in a row, my boy.