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: Solon who wrote (81263)	7/10/2009 2:49:17 AM
From: average joe	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Isn't Greg or e's G-d great... "made bets as to who would slit a man in two, or cut off his head at one blow; or they opened up his bowels. They tore the babes from their mothers breast by their feet, and dashed their heads against the rocks...they spitted the bodies of other babes, together with their mothers and all who were before them, on their swords....and by thirteens, in honor and reverence for our Redeemer and the twelve Apostles they put wood underneath and, with fire, they burned the Indians alive." en.wikipedia.org Columbus wrote: "They traded with us and gave us everything they had, with good will..they took great delight in pleasing us..They are very gentle and without knowledge of what is evil; nor do they murder or steal..Your highness may believe that in all the world there can be no better people ..They love their neighbours as themselves, and they have the sweetest talk in the world, and are gentle and always laughing."

To: Solon who wrote (81263)	7/10/2009 1:11:30 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"biologically entwined beings cannot BOTH have the recognized natural human rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. That is simply a fact." So now you admit that the unborn are Beings. Do you think they are Human Beings? Scientifically there is no doubt that the unborn child is a Human Being. You have not demonstrated why two "biologically entwined" Beings cannot share rights just like a Mother and her Toddler do. Human Beings do not live in a vacuum and so we all mitigate our absolute rights when they infringe on another persons life. Rights are always balanced by obligations. As soon as another Human Being enters the picture the obligations begin. A person has the legal right to consume alcohol but if a woman is pregnant; the consumption of alcohol will adversely and permanently damage the unborn child in her womb. It would be immoral for the Mother to exercise her right go out on a bender because it would damage the Dependant Human Being she is carrying. Even after the Child is born the parental obligation continues. You have the right to spend the day in the Casino. However, your right to gamble your life away does not absolve you of the parental obligation to take care of your child while you do. If you cannot do both then the life and welfare of the Dependant supersedes your right to gamble. "Thank you for that mature response. (sigh)" You're welcome. The post was entirely appropriate in the context of the discussion. Unlike most of your, out of the blue anti Christian attacks that ascribe beliefs and deeds that I have never given any indication that I either hold or approve of. OTOH You have explicitly indicated your hearty support for all forms of abortion and even gone so far as to show support for blatant infanticide. When asked point blank <<Do you advocate that mothers be allowed to kill their month old babies because they are too tired or poor to take care of them?>> You responded: "It is their property and if they wish to do so they WILL. It doesn't matter what you or I want them to do." This is all based on your completely arbitrary definition of what constitutes a legal Person. Infanticide and partial birth abortions are the direct result when you continually dehumanize the unborn child and remove the natural rights that all living Human Beings enjoy. "You also seem incapable of understanding that support of the right to abortion (.e. the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) does not indicate or even suggest any kind of support for abortion itself other than a necessary tolerance." I understand the distinction very well, but the kid is still dead and you are an aggressive supporter and advocate of the right of one Human Being to take the life of another Human Being without any justification. All your twisting and turning of words will not change that fact.