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 : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: cirrus who wrote (40796)	10/28/2008 9:48:31 AM
From: nigel bates	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

I wouldn't expect an answer on difficult questions like that. Creede deals only in certainty. Here's a little historical perspective on Catholic doctrine: news-info.wustl.edu

To: cirrus who wrote (40796)	10/28/2008 12:04:40 PM
From: LLCF	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Agreed... these are very difficult questions... and following some dogmatic position based on one supposedly knowing "truth" in such matters is not helpful. The ego is an interesting human function... deciding to "know the truth" on a given topic makes one feel "more whole" or "more powerful" somehow. The more people think they 'know', the more opinionated, the more "prideful", "boastful", and dare I say dangerous they are. From earlier post by Hitchens: "This is what the Republican Party has done to us this year: It has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic and a proud, boastful ignoramus. Those who despise science and learning are not anti-elitist. They are morally and intellectually slothful people who are secretly envious of the educated and the cultured. DAK

To: cirrus who wrote (40796)	10/28/2008 1:49:55 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

yeah and the whole problem with the abortion debate is that abortion is something that occurs naturally. You can even get into a heated discussion about whether something was an intentional or unintentional abortion (some drug cocktails having nothing to do with pregnancy can cause a spontaneous abortion- or a woman can be out rollerblading or something and fall, is this "murder"?). So it is not a black and white issue for hundreds of reasons. Abortion will never be illegal again in entirety just due to the legislative difficulty so the whole issue is something of a canard. Case1: Parent and 4 year old child Cast2: Parent and 4 mos old fetus. Case1, child gets life threatening disease and needs bone marrow transplant from parent. Parent refuses (deadbeat dad or something). A dispicable situation, what do we as a society do to the parent? The answer is nothing. Case2, child needs parent to carry to term to live. Parent no longer wants to carry to term and chooses to have an abortion. How is case2 different from case1, above, from a legal standpoint? it isn't really different. The bottom line is we don't violate one persons rights in favor of another person, for any adult or child. pro lifers can never win their case fully in court. They can try to mandate their pro life stance at the state level where most residents vote for no abortions and this never goes to court, or they can use the "Creul and unusual punishment" angle for some exotic procedures but thats about it.