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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (81246)	7/6/2009 6:56:31 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 82486

"You would love to change the topic from the clear biological fact that Human embryos are unique and distinct human beings to arguing about what constitutes a "legal Person" just like the slave owners and misogynists tried to do. They were wrong and so are you" The topic has NEVER been about when a full complement of homo sapien DNA occurs (although it is NOT "distinct" at conception). The topic has NEVER been about whether or not a zygote is living. The topic has NEVER been about whether or not a zygote is potentially a human person with sentience and consciousness and interests and values and ends to possibly obtain. The question is whether or not the speck of protoplasm IS an ACTUAL person by virtue of actual sentience or future possibilities. And the answer is NO. The question is whether or not there is any philosophical rationale for placing potentiality ahead of actuality and the answer is NO. The question is whether or not grounds exist to persuade society to designate a mindless speck of protoplasm as a human person with human rights to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness and the answer is NO. Rights make no sense when applied to a speck of protoplasm without interests or ends or desires. The question in these discussions is ALWAYS about WHEN human DNA ought to be considered as a HUMAN PERSON with the social RIGHTS which necessarily attach to that designation. The religious answer is (almost) always to advocate conception as the demarcation for "human person". But all the evidence makes this philosophically absurd and such a societal decision would make a mockery of all human rights and RIGHTS would simply become a matter of whim and caprice. You have no idea in that little convent of your mind how critical it is that sound reasoning prevail over hysterical superstition in this issue. You are clueless about the big picture and you are clueless about what is at stake.