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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (5336)	1/9/2017 1:18:26 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356584

(and really this isn't the type of issue that will, or could, or even should, be resolved by a dictionary) In any sort of dispute, the default matters. The default is usually the status quo. The burden of persuasion is on those who want to alter the status quo. I whipped out the dictionary as a way of determining status quo. Language does tell us something--what common thinking is about something. Once upon a time, pregnant women didn't appear naked on magazine covers. They stayed out of sight. When they went out, it was wearing a tent-like maternity top. Remember those? No one ever said "pregnant." They said "she's expecting a baby" or "she's going to have a baby." They still sometimes say that. The implication in that language was, in that time and place, that what she was carrying would be a "baby" when it was born. Now she's still "expecting" or "going to." mine was human being In a previous post I mentioned being unsure about "human being." Human, yes. Person, no. Human being, maybe. One thinks of a being as being out and about, as in "The Being From Outer Space." But maybe not necessarily. Also "person" was your criteria The reason I look at personhood is only in context of those who consider a zygote a person, thus entitled to all rights and privileges of citizenship, thus destroying it being murder. You and I had that discussion wrt Hobby Lobby, if I recall correctly. Murder is the intentional, illegal killing of a person. So the definition of "person" matters. 'Nuf of language. It seems that a lot of folks don't differentiate between the legality of abortion and the morality of abortion. Many people have an across-the-board view of the morality and want to impose theirs via law. Of course, there are varying thoughtful views on the morality, hence conflict wrt how the law should read. I think that the only sensible way to handle that is to leave it legal and let individual interested parties make the call on morality in a given situation. As I wrote earlier, there are two moral foundations that apply, by my analysis, sanctity and care/harm. You, it seems, are operating primarily if not solely off of sanctity. I nod at sanctity but think the morality in any situation is a matter of which option does the least harm, which may be abortion. Only those on the ground know the entirety of the situation.