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: Johnathan C. Doe who wrote (37816)	3/11/1999 12:50:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>Well; what legal penalties do you think should be brought against the woman; the accessory to a murder? I would think the same as it is if it were anyone else; so I think it is what; 10, 20 years or is it life with parole as an option.< Well, we must judge each case separately just as we would any murder case. Some women who have their children murdered do so under some emotional duress and so, as with the woman who delivers her child and then dumps it or even murders it, she may present to us potentially mitigating factors that would bear upon the nature of her punishment. It may be the case that she should be sent to counseling or given 10 to 20 years, depending on her circumstances. The same applies to the actual murderer, though the standard should be lower in that most often he is nothing more than a hit man. In any case, the essential principle is that abortion does not destroy a cabbage or a sausage. It destroys a living, growing human being. The onus is on the killer to prove the expendability of the child. If the killer cannot prove this, then he kills the child simply because he can, and in most cases this destruction amounts to nothing but pure barbaric murder. >What I'm particularly interested in is that the politicians that define abortion as murder explain to the general public in TV ads and radio all of these implications; they need to get up there and tell people that they will not only work to get abortion define as murder but prosecute any women found to have gotten one as an accessory to murder and talk about what penalty they would push for such a crime. All of that needs to be explained.< Well you want them to make the thing more "cut and dry" than any murder, and this is simply not reasonable. There are likely mitigating factors in many abortions that would influence the punishments of both the accessory and the murderer. You attempt to draw the politician in a debate concerning punishments when he needs first to even convince you of the truth of the murder. This is unreasonable. First let him make his case on the principle of abortion as murderous. Then if you can see the principle, help him determine the punishment. This is the reasonable approach. Up to now what the abortion side has done has been to tell the lie that abortion is nothing but the removal of a bunch of cells, similar to clipping nails. Clearly this is a lie, particularly when that clump of cells typically has its own heart, its own brain, its own hands and feet, its own lungs, and even in some cases hangs out of its mother's womb before receiving a puncture to its skull and having its brains sucked out. >How do you view the abortion of a fertilized egg caused by a woman on the pill; is that also murder? Life begins at conception of course; right? That would be murder; it would have to be; right?< Perhaps, and to judge it we must consider the woman's motive just as is the case for any homicide. The principle of the thing is this: You cannot prove that a one year-old baby is any more expendable than a two-year-old. You cannot prove that a two-minute-old neonate is any more expendable than the one-year-old. You cannot prove a child who is seconds away from birth is any more expendable than the neonate. You cannot prove that the eight-month-old unborn child is any more expendable than the child who is seconds away from birth. You cannot prove that the two-week-old fetus is any more expendable than the eight-month-old unborn child. You cannot prove that the three-day-old fetus is any more expendable than the two-week-old fetus. You cannot prove that the conceptus is any more expendable than the three-day-old fetus. To kill any of these growing entities, you must first prove their expendability. If you cannot prove their expendability and yet kill them, you do it merely because you have power to do it. Here we see that Might is Right, and when humans take this law into their own hands and apply it to human relations, then any kind of murderous depravity is possible-- even nearly delivering a baby, puncturing its head with scissors and sucking out its brains. Indeed, there is no principle upon which we can stand to argue against the murder of a neonate, or a two-year-old or a fifty year-old. Those who kill unborn children kill them on the basis of no moral or ethical principle. They have no moral or ethical right to kill. They kill only on the basis of their power. And we see they are pure murderous barbarians.