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: Solon who wrote (21178)	7/13/2005 4:08:51 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

"I do not support murder or the Right to murder." If you support partial birth infanticide then you do support murder you just don't have the stones to admit it. "safe and medically necessary in order to preserve the health of women under certain circumstances" You refuse to say what the "medically necessary" circumstances are because besides the convenience of killing the disabled before you are lawfully required to care for them there are none. Anyone with any sense of what is really happening knows that "health of the woman" means anything and everything the pro death squads want it to. The life of the mother is never in question since the procedure itself is much more traumatic than a normal birth. This is about "betters" (like you) killing those they consider to be inferior, nothing more!

To: Solon who wrote (21178)	7/13/2005 7:37:51 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 28931

<<<How much genetic damage does one have to have in order to justify killing it?>>> "It is not for me to draw those lines. It is between the woman and her doctor." That's not an answer it's an irrelevant evasion of the question. It was you that said partial birth infanticide was justified by the fact that some of the unborn had genetic damage. The natural question that raises is; How much damage does there need to be in order to justify taking the life of an innocent Human being? It's a simple question. I could see justification for taking another Humans life in the case of self defense. I can even see a good case made for capital punishment of criminals for particularly heinous crimes. However to take the life of an innocent Human being for no other reason than convenience or some general selfish interest is not morally justifiable. Could it just be that it's a female instead of a male child and the parents don't want a female? There really doesn't need to be any reason does there? It's legal and that's all that matters to you. So if killing toddlers was "legal" that would be none of your business either, but what happened in a war three thousand years ago is all consuming to you? What's up with that? Any Judge that classifies some Humans as non persons so that they may be legally killed for the sake of convenience is not just a moron they are morally bankrupt. "The reasoned position at which a creature with human DNA becomes a LEGAL PERSON is at the point which it has inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. This ensues upon separation from the mother." A child in the mothers arms has no more ability to "pursue" rights than a child in the womb. Both are entirely dependent. So... the essential difference between "a creature with human DNA" and you is....? Oh right, you are not helpless and vulnerable. "the passion to assist is still alive and active in the human conscience" Apparently not.