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 : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10437)	12/4/2010 10:42:49 AM
From: longnshort	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

" I have a genuine memory with a prenatal component." funny how Solon,LLCF and that recent visitor don't question this 'myth' of yours, also saying , how can you recreate this for (insert name) or other silly questions wexler asked me when I said I had experiences with 'ghosts' saying your mind created this after you were born. Must be one of those the enemy of my enemy thingy

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10437)	12/4/2010 2:37:38 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

"I have a genuine memory with a prenatal component" Thanks for sharing that. Did you use the word "genuine" to anticipate potential doubt? ;-) I never scoff at sincere opinions of truth. It is clear that you are not attempting to mislead and misrepresent which is the practice of immoral people everywhere. A very Eeeeky practice, indeed! Your posts clearly place you apart from that bizarre group. There is some evidence that an 8 month old fetus can habituate sounds--that is to say that the old brain or primitive neural system can "learn" to stop reacting to a certain vibratory/acoustic stimulus. This "memory" (when it occurs) was measured for up to ten minutes duration. Interesting. Of course, we must remember that this is not what is known as a "conscious" memory laid down in the cerebral cortex. If you have seen studies showing a pervasive "memory" or introspective/conscious memory, then I would much appreciate you directing me to it. Even though I see all developmental arguments as irrelevant to the issue of human rights, they are obviously very pertinent to the advocacy of societal morals and policies. And, of course, cerebral development could be used as an argument against the choice of abortion (as most of us so use it) but it is NOT an argument against human rights. Basically, we decide as a group that we have a right to our lives--or we do not. If we cannot step in front of a car, drink poison, or consume whiskey at will--then we are accepting a different humanity than the one we have earned over thousands of centuries. We cannot both control a woman's body AND afford her the right to life. It is one or the other. 90% of the cells in the human body are not human cells. You can advocate for them but you cannot tell the owner of the body how to use her body or whether to choose to even stay alive. Fortunately, it is not an issue for other than fanatics with an axe to grind. As you pointed out, it is no pleasure for either a pregnant girl OR the doctor (who has devoted his life to the ethic of service) to endure an abortion--NOT AT ANY STAGE. And I am aware that cows and pigs and the things we kill for food ARE alive and have memories, and so forth. (One more evidence against any kind of innate compassion or wisdom behind evolution)! All energy must consume other energy to survive and that consumption usually causes fear and pain and other unpleasant events including extinction. But the ham and eggs are ready and the rye bread, too. So I will say my Gratitudes to the living and to the dead--and go get some more energy... ____________________________ "If you choose to deal with men by means of compulsion, do so. But you will discover that you need the voluntary co-operation of your victims, in many more ways than you can see at present. And your victims should discover that it is their own volition—which you cannot force—that makes you possible. I choose to be consistent and I will obey you in the manner you demand. Whatever you wish me to do, I will do it at the point of a gun. If you sentence me to jail, you will have to send armed men to carry me there—I will not volunteer to move. If you fine me, you will have to seize my property to collect the fine—I will not volunteer to pay it. If you believe that you have the right to force me—use your guns openly. I will not help you to disguise the nature of your action." * Hank Rearden

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (10437)	12/4/2010 3:19:32 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

Society can neither grant nor remove the right to abortion. One's life and body are fundamental. Our only choice is to infringe that right--not to validate it. So it is an interesting concept as to how developed a fetus would have to be before certain fringe members of society would pass a law that would allow them to forcibly capture a woman and cut her open and remove the fetus. Presumably (as they have already dishonored the right to life) they would then just simply leave her to die in the blood and call for the sweepers. Crude and disquieting picture, but people must realize that freedom to live is the right we are discussing, not the "right" to abortion. If the fetus is to be made the interest and the property of society, then there are myriad consequences and correlatives which must be acknowledged and endured. If that were ever to happen in my lifetime, I would know that life with my peers was no longer worth respecting, and I would head into the deep woods to live out the remainder of my life with the wonderful animals...