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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10647)	10/22/1998 1:32:00 AM
From: Dwight E. Karlsen	Respond to of 67261

Well stated, Johannes. I agree. Now, re In any reasonable moral analysis of an action, we must consider the motive of the person committing the action. Exactly so. That is why it was indeed foolish for Clinton, in his videotaped testimony to the GJ, to insist that he had not committed perjury in the PJ deposition. Anyone who has observed any courtroom procedures at all knows that when attempting the divine the guilt of someone, one must attempt to try to find the individual's intent. There are even legally different crimes, base soley on intent, one more serious than the other: When one recklessly causes death, but not intending death specifically, you might get charged with "manslaughter". OTOH, when one intends to kill, and does so, you more probably get charged with murder in the first degree, i.e. premeditated murder. "I did not have a sexual relationship, or any improper relationship, with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" ("and I meant exactly that in my Paula Jones deposition", was what this public Presidential lie was meant to convey). If there ever was a premeditated liar, President Clinton stands as an example of that, now and forever.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10647)	10/22/1998 3:36:00 AM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<This issue alone is enough to force me to vote against the politician who embraces abortion >>Oh, oh.It will now be on my conscious forever more that I am the one responsible for you voting. Egad!! what have I done??!! When will I learn to a. keep my big mouth shut? b.Read a few posts before I start giving advice? Well, since pro choice is by it self reason enough for me to vote for any politician I guess we will cancel each other out forever more. I guess I'll just have to out live you that's all. pez

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (10647)	10/22/1998 11:52:00 AM
From: Charles Hughes	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Thanks for your response. However, it still seems to be incomplete in two respects: 1. "If the intent of the user of anything is to destroy the human conceptus, and if that conceptus has indeed been destroyed as a result of the intent, then he who harbored the intent and who executed or was complicit in the execution of the conceptus, has committed murder." Since RU-486 is a morning after pill, there can be no other motive to use it than to terminate any prospective embryo in development. So I don't understand why you won't simply equate this with first degree murder, given your premises. 2. "The answer is obvious. While women who drink and smoke while pregnant are acting foolishly, if their intent is not to destroy the conceptus, then we cannot claim they committed murder. What they have done is perhaps analogous to forming a habit of backing their cars out of their garages without first checking to see if their children are behind the cars." You have claimed to know what is murder and what is not, so a bit more inquiry is called for here. We recognize types of murder ranging from reckless disregard for life, to manslaughter, to 2nd degree and then premeditated murder, with various possibilities of extenuating circumstances or diminished capacity at the different levels. If a person knows that tobacco smoke, even second hand, and alcohol as well, can cause fetal death and miscarriage, as most people are now aware from public health notices to that effect, I don't see why given your philosophy, we should not try these people for manslaughter at the very least. Manslaughter does not require the direct intention to do harm, merely the knowledge that harm might be done, and not even that in all cases. Yours, Chaz