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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sam Ferguson who wrote (32499)	3/14/1999 8:41:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

I guess you could compare with a mans sperm thrown away in a condom. Sam, the comparison is not valid. It is valid versus contraception means used by women, such as diaphragms, birth control pills, and the like. BTW, there are plenty of people considering abortion to be of a different order than contraception who do not bomb clinics or hew to the radical Christian right. The issue hangs on definitions of human life and of rights; some of us are all too aware of recent history, during which blacks and women were not regarded as full persons under the law, and are leery of markedly exclusive definitions--even though defining the unborn as legal persons may mean a good deal of personal heartache for us. Also BTW, I have discovered that when I am composing a lengthy response, it is a good idea to Edit/Copy to avoid being "Squidded." All the best!

To: Sam Ferguson who wrote (32499)	3/14/1999 8:15:00 PM
From: Sidney Reilly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Sam, << And so you will know, I will maintain that the fetus does not become a living soul until it enters with the first breath. >> I was amused by this concept of life you posted. On a biological level the baby starts getting oxygen through the mother almost from conception. You say that because the baby starts to get oxygen through it's own lungs it is now "life" but are we to assume that while the baby is breathing through it's mother it is not "life"!? That argument has no sound logic that I can see. There is no physiological difference after birth that further defines life. The method of breathing did not change the baby in any significant way that would logically point to "life" that was not present before the birth. You think that the child becomes a living soul upon birth and not before? Does the "soul vendor" pass out the souls when they pop out and take the first breath? Where is the proof of that? Just some curious questions, hope you don't mind. SR