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.

Pastimes : "I STILL own the ban button, buddy" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (956)	12/4/2012 2:14:57 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2133

You are just so obtuse! You keep repeating a point that is not under contention and that I have repeatedly proved irrelevant! How does repeating an uncontested point improve your argument or give it any balls? It doesn't. Human DNA is irrelevant to the question of when we give rights to an egg or a sperm. Nothing within a human body can ever have a right. It must follow the will and the value of the person with established rights and interests. Certainly, an early fetus has no interest. It does not look forward to anything and it does not fear anything. It is only meaningful to speak of rights if someone's interests are being referenced. And even that is not enough. If people had no fears or desires, death would be irrelevant. Death hurts nobody. It is the fear of death and the desires in life that urge human beings to agree to fundamental rights and freedoms for all. If nothing matters to you (you are brain dead, for instance), then you have no interests and no rights. A fetus can no more hook up to a woman's body for nurture and sustenance than you can. If a fetus had that right, then so could you and I. Being born is a privilege--not a right.