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: neolib who wrote (117319)	4/8/2019 5:21:00 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 356774

It seems equivalent to saying either that a priori religious people might have morals while atheists can't or a priori abortion has nothing to do with morality. Not at all what I was suggesting. I was differentiating between morals that are handed down to subscribers, dictated by an authoritarian deity, and morals that are not imposed by a higher authority but are established by humans based on values and analysis. It is because I don't believe that imparted doctrine has a monopoly on morals that I ask the question. No matter how much thought I have given to the question, and it has been considerable, I cannot come up with a non-doctrinal reason for making the moral judgment that the forced preservation of a human embryo trumps all other considerations, both moral and practical. It occurred to me that mel, who seems quite apposed to abortion and also claims to be an atheist might be in a perfect position to offer some rationale that I haven't been able to fathom. If there is one, I would really like to know what it is.