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: Katelew who wrote (81428)	7/5/2018 10:11:37 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 354107

I have no idea what you just said!! That was mostly me being cranky. A bit of background. My first encounter with the issue of abortion came way back in the day when I was wearing a Brownie uniform and my troop was discussing the news that a Catholic hospital was being built in the next town. A discussion erupted when someone said that at Catholic hospitals the policy was that, if they couldn't save both mother and baby, they automatically saved the baby. I found that instinctively outrageous. Here we have a person with relationships in the world and utility for others and they'd throw her away in favor of what is virtually a cypher. I pictured her husband trying, without her, to hold down a job and take care of their three kids plus a baby and maybe other challenges. How could that baby automatically be accorded greater weight than the woman carrying him? Seemed irrational and absurd to me then and it still does. There are people out there who consider a zygote to be a person. I have never encountered one in "real life" so there has been no one who could give me a rational explanation of that position. In 20 years on SI I have encountered such people and have had many discussions on the subject but still no joy. (The only explanations I have ever encountered for outlawing other people's abortions have been either religious (in the form of ensoulment or simply "God said so, so be it"), sentimentality, or "ouch" that could have been me.) So when Mel offered that his view was not religious, I probed to see if he would be the one with my long-sought rational explanation at a conceptual level for not distinguishing between the pre-born and the born. But mid discussion he got off into partial-birth abortion and already we were down in the weeds fussing over the particulars of the instant when the shift of condition occurred rather than why the shift was or wasn't relevant. Then you chimed in, also in minutia territory with the bit about first breath, hence my recognition that I would not get my explanation out of this discussion, hence my disappointment, hence my response to you. Esp. about Shrodingers Cat............ It was a symbol of concept vs minutia and it was pertinent to the discussion in that the conversation with Mel had included mention of three conditions, pre-born, in the world, and dead, so I threw it in. Shrodinger's Cat represented the epitome of minutia surrounding the determination of what condition an entity is in, in the cats's case, dead vs alive rather than pre-born vs born. TMI, eh? <g> (I write this kind of post mostly as a journal entry.)