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 (21352)	7/19/2005 2:13:05 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 28931

"I suppose the question I have for you is what level of qualification are you looking for? " No. I am rejecting the levels argument. Unless all agree to it, in which case the discussion is resolved by imposing an arbitrary point (like Oeconomicus proposed). I am looking for convincing evidence that allows us to qualify something as a human being or not a human being. Not partly a human being, or potentially a human being, or close enough, or already a human being but we can't say for sure where it is that the threshold was crossed. That goal may not be achievable but for the sake of this discussion we all accept the phrase, “All men are created equal.” We have for the sake of this discussion agreed that the term ‘All men’ references ‘all human beings.’ And further, the fact that once a human being is created it is enough to entitle them to natural inalienable rights. However, we are bogged down in disagreement on what constitutes a ‘human being’ entitled to inalienable rights. It is my opinion that some of us are harboring other issues that are contaminating the discussion. For example: Whether abortion is abhorent or practical and innocuous; and ideas about natural harmony achievable or not through population management.