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: koan who wrote (436882)	11/26/2008 3:00:33 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573908

Koan, > It is an existential decision, but as only liberals usually live in an existential world, conservatives have no idea what we are talking about. Sure we do. The only "dilemma" regarding abortion stems from the notion that pregnancy is a "side effect" of sex. "Existentialism" has nothing to do with it. There is nothing "complicated" about using abortion as an easy escape from the responsibilities of child-bearing. I don't see any indication that you understand the world of conservatives. Tenchusatsu

To: koan who wrote (436882)	11/26/2008 5:47:56 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573908

"What you say above, is well understood by us "liberals". We just have a different opinion. Chris made it quite clear that human life has no moral value greater than a dog's life ... and not just fetuses, but children and human adults as well. But while this view is different, its not really more complex. ----------------------------------------- First the most evolved of us do not kill animals for food. Or confine their killing to the least intelligent of animals i.e. seafood. They are called vegetarians. I am not one, but I do consider vegetarians to be above me with reagard to living a more moral life. You seem to have picked up a particular moral opinion from Buddhism (probably without giving it much thought). Because what you've said seems to be pretty much what Buddhists believe (that while vegetarianism isn't required, its more compassionate to be vegetarian): accesstoinsight.org But Buddhists are also prolife and because of the same precept involved in regarding vegetarianism as more compassionate: What were the Buddha's views on abortion? Practicing Buddhists observe the five precepts as a foundation for the moral life that spiritual progress requires. The first of these precepts is to "refrain from destroying living creatures." Because Theravada Buddhism regards human life as beginning at the moment of conception,1 killing a fetus implies killing a human being, making abortion patently incompatible with the first precept. accesstoinsight.org How is it that you accept a Buddhist viewpoint on vegetarianism, but not on abortion? ----------------------------------- We liberals do everything we can to see animals are treated humanly, even the ones we use for food. So do conservatives. So does any civilized person. -------------------------------- With regard to abortion, which is I am sure, what your post alludes too, we "liberals" view it as a dilemma. We do not like abortion, but we feel even more strongly the woman should have the right to make decisions regarding her own body. Even though scientifically, a fetus isn't part of the mothers body. Its a new human life. -------------------------------- we understand your world very clearly and we have rejected it. You on the other hand, have no understanding of our world, but just reject it out of hand, without understanding it. I understand most liberals have an emotional need to feel and pose as superior to and more "enlightened" to others, particularly conservatives and traditionalists. Sowell calls them the "annointed". Looking down on the "benighted" is important in maintaining the sense of superiority. I think I understand the attitude you've just outlined and I see it as just another form of human arrogance.