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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (341324)	6/25/2007 5:40:46 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1577984

It's government sticking it's head into personal moral/religious decisions. "Personal" begs the question. Its only personal if the fetus is assumed to just be part of the mother, or to be some foreign object with no rights or status. "Religious"? - Not really. This is obviously a question that religion has a lot of impact on, but it isn't a religious question. It isn't about theology, or worship practices. It isn't an attempt to impose theocracy. "Thou shalt not kill" is a religious edict, but that doesn't make laws against killing religious laws. Most religions condemn theft, but once again outlawing theft is not imposing religion. Just because some religious group condemns an action, doesn't mean that passing laws against that thing is imposing religion. If making laws imposing the ideas that a religion supports is a violation of church and state, I should go out and start a religion that calls for all sorts of ideas that I dislike or disagree with... How can you support government intervention when you argue against it 24/7? Unless intervention is a good thing when it matches your personal convictions. The "meta-standard" I apply is that government generally shouldn't impose controls and intervene except to protect the peace, to protect humans from attack or fraud. (In some cases where the apparent practical benefit is huge, and apparently obvious, and greatly exceeds the costs, including indirect costs, I might also accept intervention). Of course you don't have to agree with this "meta-standard", and obviously you don't agree with some particular conclusions I reach using it as a baseline. But there is no contradiction between it and support for laws against abortion.