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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (314181)	12/25/2024 11:19:35 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 363260

Another default is the ten commandments. Maybe for you but that's not universally of value. We still have freedom of religion in the US. The default is you do not believe that every human life starts at moment of conception. More precisely put is that a clump of cells is not a person. Persons have legal standing. Clumps, regardless of their nature, don't. You deny science facts the we know today. There exist no science facts that prove that a collection of cells constitute an entity let alone that the entity has legal standing. You say men can define some relative definition of life to skirt thou shall not kill. Words, having been defined by people, have meaning . Were you to run over a zinnia with your lawn mower, you could be said to have killed the zinnia. Were you to open a packet of zinnia seeds and one got destroyed, you would not be said to have killed a zinnia. Because, even though it has zinnia dna, it is not yet a zinnia. It's too bad that it was destroyed but that's not considered a zinnia killing. {More so, were said seed still forming on a zinnia plant, not yet fully a seed, and you broke it off before it were a viable seed, you would even less consider calling the breaking off a zinnia killing.} You are not thinking critically. Your views come from some other place. If you want to argue that all human clumps must be retained and brought to life, you need a more cogent argument. Your view is an emotional one, not a scientific or rational one. Emotional positions call for softer arguments. Religion is a softer argument but no religion is universal. Maybe something along the lines of lost opportunity....

To: Thomas A Watson who wrote (314181)	12/25/2024 12:44:18 PM
From: Brumar89	2 Recommendations Recommended By bentway Wharf Rat Respond to of 363260

I used to believe life began at conception. it made sense to me. But then genesis 2 was quoted to me and I learned the Bible taught with the first breath of life.