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 (21159)	7/12/2005 5:34:21 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Good article. TP's argument at this point is one of self-awareness. I consider that as vague as ensoulment. We all are able to recognize these creatures but none of us can target the exact instant when the TP creature erupts from its previous form. That leaves us with little else but to pick an arbitrary point. Yours is conception and the argument is that we know the creature is a human being at that point. There is a great deal of controversy over whether its self awareness or ensoulment is assured by that fact. TP can assure us of self awareness but he picks his arbitrary point prior to that assurance. One problem with his argument is that your arbitrary point is also prior, just more prior. His second argument is that his arbitrary point marks the separation from the mother so that rights may be determined as physically independent. He can not prove that the foetus is not self aware only that it does not have the ability to demonstrate for us that it is self aware. So for a moment let us return to the law. To make a law forbidding abortion at this point we must either determine the basis for that law to be according to our belief about what human qualities justify inalienable rights and which ones don't. One might argue that we should not be allowed to impose our beliefs on a legal statute; however, that is problematic since inalienable rights are based on a belief about the human condition. To make a law for abortion the proponents must also base the law on belief and further impose that belief against the belief of someone who opposes abortion. If abortion is to be legal and non-discriminatory, then you could legitimately be forced to support it with your tax dollars, against your beliefs. A third position that could be taken is that abortion is neither legal nor illegal. Abortion laws could be stricken from the books, leaving only traditional medical practice to account for procedures. No one is entitled to abortions as a 'right' and no one is forbidden to have an abortion by law. There would still need to be a law that determines when a human being obtains legal rights. Currently that is at birth, since a mother who kills her new born infant can be charged with a crime.

To: Greg or e who wrote (21159)	7/13/2005 1:31:49 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

”TP uses both objections, and you take objection two (some Humans are "Better" than others) Both are refuted and shown to be unscientific and irrational.” He already disproved that. Unless you wish to challenge his proof, you only make yourself foolish by simply repeating a misunderstanding of fact. And I have never objected to birth control or abortion on such a basis. Some humans are indeed “better” than others—whether we evaluate competence, intelligence, moral value…or some other criteria. But that is irrelevant to the question; the abortion issue involves zygotes and fetuses—not legal human persons--except insofar as it involves the rights of the prospective mother.