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: one_less who wrote (21162)	7/12/2005 6:54:19 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"There would still need to be a law that determines when a human being obtains legal rights." I don't believe Human beings "obtain" rights at some point on a continuum of development, (Neither did the framers). It is simply the fact that from a strictly scientific, material, standpoint, Human beings come into existence at conception. I have deliberately left the question of "en-Soulment" off the table in an attempt to meet the materialist/Atheist on common ground but I am beginning to see that the Atheist has no solid ground upon which to base inalienable Human rights in the first place. They have simply mimicked the Theistic principals that under gird the founding of the United States but the guts have been removed and the foundations destroyed so all that remains is a hollow shell of selfish interest, so feeble and teetering, that the next breeze that comes along will cause it to collapse in on itself. Once God is removed as the base and grounding of Human rights there is simply no compelling reason to consider "all men" as being equal. Pseudo solon is a prime example of what would happen if those who consider themselves "better" than others were to gain power. It is no accident that Despots and Tyrants have always eliminated those whom they considered inferior or who challenged their self proclaimed "right to rule". After all they know what is best for we lesser Humans. He really thinks he is a Fox who has the best interests of the Chickens at heart. YA RIGHT!

To: one_less who wrote (21162)	7/12/2005 9:25:00 PM
From: TigerPaw	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

that is problematic since inalienable rights are based on a belief about the human condition. The concept of inalienable rights is found in the Declaration of Independance. That document contains a powerful call to emotions but is not considered a legal document. The Constitution is the basis of our legal framework and it deals with practical procedures for checks and balances and rights based on mutual benefit. There is nothing inalienable in that document. TP

To: one_less who wrote (21162)	7/12/2005 10:07:43 PM
From: exdaytrader76	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

Currently that is at birth Is it? Man, convicted under fetal protection law, receives life Jun 6, 2005 LUFKIN, Texas An East Texas man faces a life prison sentence for causing his teenage girlfriend to miscarry twins, even though she wanted to end the pregnancy. Gerardo Flores was accused of causing the miscarriage by stepping on his girlfriend's stomach. He was prosecuted under the state's new fetal protection law. Erica Basoria acknowledged asking Flores to help end her pregnancy. But the 17-year-old can't be prosecuted because of her legal right to abortion. The defense contended that Basoria punched herself while Flores was stepping on her, making it impossible to tell who killed the twins. The jury reached a verdict after deliberating four hours. Because prosecutors declined to seek the death penalty in the case, Flores received the automatic life sentence. 10tv.com diggersrealm.com Under state fetal protection law, a mother cannot be punished for causing the death of her own unborn children, for any reason. Medical personnel are also exempt. Flores' trial is a landmark case under state law, which went into effect Sept. 1, 2003. A similar federal law was established a month before Flores' arrest. Causing the death of an unborn fetus — from conception to birth — is punishable by the death penalty or life in prison. The prosecution is not seeking the death penalty against Flores.