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: Oeconomicus who wrote (21733)	7/26/2005 10:25:25 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

"When did anyone suggest carving anyone "up into 2 or 3 or 4" or slitting their throats? That'd have to be your worst straw man yet." I don't deal in straw men. Your accusation is a straw man. I am suggesting (and it is consistent with what I have suggested over the years on this thread) that any contemplation of the woman's body as containing TWO "human persons" with fundamental rights IS a violation of her rights under natural law (and under the U.S. Constitution as it embodies the concepts of Natural Law). The claim that all have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is incompatible with the belief that a pregnant woman is TWO individual citizens wrapped into one package. The idea is absurd and incapable of rational defence. As I said...to support a presumed right of society to my property (my body) is to revert to lawlessness. When you are on your property and of sound mind, "society" cannot lawfully enter upon your property and/or dictate how you treat your body and what is in it (your property). Indeed, I have a right under natural law to defend myself against anyone who threatens my body. I believe a pregnant woman is no different than other humans when it comes to the issue of rights. Therefore, the implication that society has any right to her fertilized egg or how or if she disposes of it is simple arrogance. This is not just a parlor debate, you know? We are discussing millions of real living women and whether or not we have a "right" to dictate whether or how they are obligated to parasites within their body. PARASITE: "An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host." A fertilized egg IS a potential child. It IS a potential individual. But it is NOT an individual until it is developed and separated. It is a PARASITE. This is not a value judgment. This parasite may be the most important living organism in the Universe to the woman hosting it and feeding it. BUT...it is HER property and HER concern. IT survives on HER body and HER tolerance. It has sweet p-ss all to do with you or with me or with greg or e. The fact that we even debate the issue is reprehensible. "But not for an unborn child." Correct. The potential "child" which develops within the body of a pregnant woman is HER PROPERTY and part of HER BODY. She is either ONE individual or she is TWO or more individuals. I say that an individual is ONE. What say you?? If people were obliged to sacrifice their happiness for the interest of human DNA then what would be wrong with WE (society) compelling you to nurse the implanted head of Ted Williams? Oh, I see! He is not YOUR property! I guess you do believe in individuals and property rights!