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: TigerPaw who wrote (20367)	6/14/2005 12:59:06 PM
From: Greg or e	Respond to of 28931

I have a 16 hr drive ahead of me to get home today . I'll talk to you later.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (20367)	6/16/2005 11:50:50 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Good morning TP I had a long drive to think about your post which I admit I find very disturbing. I was down in the States installing and finishing a new oak floor in my oldest boys home. <<<Not being wanted is not a sufficient reason to kill someone.>>> "It's sufficient reason for shaving your beard, or getting rhinoplasty. All those kill cells." "You really have a pecular way of thinking (not that it is uncommon). Being wanted is probably the most important trait in the decision of whether to have a child or not. It's absurd to think that there is some kind of laudable goal in trying to maximize the number of babies born when their own mothers don't want them. TP" I don't know if you have kids or have ever held a new born Child in your hands. I have done it three times, once with each of my children. I can assure you that if one of my children had died just before or during the birth, that they would not have been treated like just another piece of tissue. That brings me to the most disturbing part of your post where you compare abortion to shaving because they both "kill cells". I have shaved and I have had surgery, but neither of those things ever effected another Human besides myself. I don't know why you intentionally ignore my point that the unborn are biologically and genetically distinct from the mother. I can only suppose it is because in doing so, it would destroy your assertion that the unborn are nothing but an extension of the mothers anatomy that she can freely dispose of without any moral of ethical considerations. I don't ignore your points (at least not intentionally) and would appreciate you not ignoring mine. Now to wanted-ness; It is an unfortunate reality that many children are not wanted by their biological parents. The perception that most of the problems in the world today would be solved if only all children were wanted is highly questionable in the first place, but also entirely irrelevant to the question of abortion. Why? because we don't solve social problems by killing innocent Human beings! That's why! "But they are not Human beings" is the reply. But that is the question in the first place which is unjustifiably assumed. How do we determine what a Human being is? I hear over and over from Secular Humanists that all questions of truth are to be decided on the basis of scientific facts and not on subjective, religious or philosophical value judgments. Aside from the incongruity that the statement itself fails it's own test and cannot be justified; One simply has to question their commitment to this. It seems when the scientific facts go against their claims, they want to ignore them and move to subjective value judgments as the criteria for truth. I am willing to put the subjective elements aside and just deal with the biological and scientific facts on the question of the Humanity of the unborn. Why aren't you? A new and biologically distinct life begins to exist at the moment of conception. That's the fact. Now if you want to say that not all Humans should be given "rights" then that is another question, but I wonder who gets to make up the list?