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: Greg or e who wrote (39198)	7/21/2013 3:09:40 AM
From: 2MAR$	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

You can’t reduce a complex reality to nimrod~slogans, when nimrods try to do so, they minimize the personhood of women and we know that the majority of abortions near 96% are done in the early stages. Your statement is false, there is no consensus in science when life & personhood begins, there's no consensus of there even being a consensus. This is just stating the facts. It is true that human life requires conception as a first step but that is not the same as pregnancy or personhood. There is a process of 5-8days after fertilization when human life begins but we find 50-80% eggs never attach to uterine wall and silently aborted. So you have millions of abortions taking place every year, murdered early by the Intelligent Designer , this using your own definition of murder. In 1973, Harry Blackmun wrote the SUPREME Court opinion there is no consensus of when life begins, no surprise you're caught lying again. When stuck in a helpless position of abysmal ignorance you have little chance of proving absolute morality, when natural abortion is a fact of nature. Fortunately women do have more powerful voices today, are not helpless, do have choice of when they wish to concieve, so consider your irrational relative moral position neutered. "We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man's knowledge, is not in a position to speculate

To: Greg or e who wrote (39198)	7/21/2013 7:37:31 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 69300

"You equated a human fetus with a piece of snot." Earth to Sky Fairy...Hello in there! No. I pointed out that phlegm (which is apparently 'snot' to you) has human DNA and nobody suggests it has rights! Your argument was that human DNA is sufficient to establish rights. I maintain that rights require individuation and personal interest. If nothing matters to you, then the concept of a right is meaningless. "ignorant Snot Nose" The Sunday School kids must really bond with you!!