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 (38107)	3/12/1999 12:31:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Nope. <<I think reasonable people will see that the vast majority of abortions in this country are pure murderous barbarism.>> Reasonable people have determined the benefits of head pinching. They have used logic and determined it a useful solution to societal struggles. When you reduce the issue to its essential principle, killing a human being, or not. Many people have concluded that they can't determine the point at which a human being exists vs a production of bodily flesh held in the womans uterus, which may or may not continue to develop. As a result reasonable people have tried to create a matrix of decision making based on how serious the situation is for the mother and whether or not their is a viable "human being" in the womb. This effort is a distracting waste of time. Ultimately no one can define with confidence where in the variables of such a matrix must be boxed. So, with a nudge there is nothing and any whim becomes validated on any premise you can propose. The only possible outcome of this course is to let the mother and or the doctor decide. The other conclusion to the essential principle in question drawn by reasonable people is that a human being does exist in utero. Some of these people buy into the idea that we should be able to set a mark during pregnancy where a human being begins to exist and allow abortion prior to that point. Some reasonal people challenge this idea claiming that you cannot know the precise point where a human being exists so establishing any kind of abortion marker allows for the presumption that some if not all of the aborted fetuses are human beings. That is me.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (38107)	3/12/1999 12:46:00 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<Reduce it first to its essential principle and begin to eat from there.>> Keep in mind that the laws of nature in the world are very practical at least to non-human creatures. Survival of the fitest, dog eat dog, and all that. Human nature: where in you benefit by serving a God of charity and compassion can be known through the hearts of human beings but not justified by a study of physical creation. Human systems of organization are no more perfect in their performance than are the human beings designing and managing them. In general such systems are conflicted with the dog eats dog elements woven into the human nature with a devine reference elements. Simple reason isn't enough. The premise of God as original author must be at the foundation of the debate to make your arguement succeed with other reasonable people.

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (38107)	3/12/1999 4:54:00 PM
From: Johnathan C. Doe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Actually; isn't the place to start; the sex act leading to the unwanted baby. Shouldn't premarital sex be the start of the CRIME and so shouldn't that be the place to criminalize the whole thing. Why wait to start with the situation with the fetus in the mother. Shouldn't it on principle be crimnal to impregnate an unmarried woman? On principle; it is like driving drunk; you don't have to hit anything to have it be a crime. Wouldn't crimnalizing the sex act be the better place to discourage everyone; then you won't have all these babies to deal with. Now that is the direction you folks need to be going in.