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.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Maxer who wrote (5422)	1/29/1998 8:11:00 PM
From: Tharos	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 17367

Unfortunately, there are no devices that "prevent" the spread of STDs. The most popularly put forward device, a condom, is made from Latex rubber. There are holes in Latex; it is inherent from the manufacturing process and the thickness of the Latex. These holes are too large for sperm to pass through, but the AIDS virus is 100 times smaller than the holes. That's why the boxes these and other devices come in clearly state that they are for conception prevention, not disease prevention. For many Americans, marriage involves vows of some kind, a pledge to each other. This pledge often includes the vow to "forsake all others." The Clintons have not told us how they define their marriage, but whatever I think of Hilary, I think she is smarter than to let her husband have sex with whomever he wants. We do know Bill has lied at least once to the American public. As I said, "If you will cheat on your wife, . . ." We do know Hilary is sticking by her man, and depending on your point of view it is either admirable or foolish. As far as moralists defining marriage bounds, let's accept the argument posted to this thread that a pledge between two people planning to share the same domicile doesn't mean "squat," and its OK for married partners to decide who they will have sex with and when. Does that include their children? Should a parent wait for his/her child to reach the Age of Consent (14 in some states) or the Age of Majority? I mean, there is no genetic reason not to have sex with your daughter/son in this age of reasonably effective pre-contraceptives and the 100% effective post-contraceptive-abortion. "Say Susie, now that you are fourteen, why don't you let me give you a really great birthday present?" "OK, Daddy!" Within this thread we have presented the argument that the FDA should put Neuprex on the fast track because of its positive effects on a horrible childhood disease. I believe most if not all of us would agree with that thought. The basis of the argument is moral one, even if the motivation is greed. My point here is I think people will draw a line somewhere, and most often they will use a moral argument to support their decision. Morality is concerned with the principals of right and wrong in relation to human action and character. It is a moral argument that suggests stealing and killing are wrong. Some morals find their basis from religion, such as the US Constitution's claim "the Creator has given us certain unalienable rights." It is pretty clear from the documents of our Founding Fathers that they did not expect us to "check our morality and religious perspective at the door" when deciding societal issues. And it seems pretty clear to me that Thomas Jefferson's comment that Jesus had excellent ideas on how to order a society but it was a shame that he had to be deified should be enough evidence that Jefferson's inputs to moral social order were not religiously motivated. So you have to be very careful when making an argument against morality. Society is dependent on morals for survival, and I find that when an amoralist is confronted by personalization they seldom remain amoral.