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 (38414)	3/15/1999 2:37:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>These methods should only be allowed on severely deformed, etc. babies; babies that would be in terrible pain and die within a short period of time or is missing limbs, etc.< And by what principle can we judge all this so that it objectively applies to everyone. Your severely deformed child is another's wonderful gift, and your wonderful gift is another's severely deformed child. There are literally people in this country who will kill a child simply because it is the “wrong” sex. All this judgement of yours above are personal subjective determinations, nothing to which you might hold me. Now surely there are matters that require our making such determinations. I submit to you that general killing of human organisms within a civilized society is not one of them. >This all sounds terrible if you picture a perfectly healthy baby, but this was SUPPOSED to be for screwed up babies.< Dear me, sir. Are you really thinking here with me or are you simply trying to avoid my point? There are people, many of them, who have and will literally kill a child simply because of its sex. Killing them may sound terrible to you, but it certainly does not prohibit others killing a child. >I guess life of the mother would require extracting the baby somehow out of the mother in a way that would save her life also. I can't imagine how you can make it pretty to describe the horrible sitation of killing a baby to save the mother, but it has to be done sometimes.< And in these cases we see that the presence of the child naturally presents death to both the mother and the child. Killing the child in this instance is done to preserve life. The natural circumstances present the death, and not the killing of the child. Contrary to these circumstances, abortion as it is commonly used is implemented purely on the basis of whim. It is barbarism. >Some medical situations are horrifying when described and most people outside of doctors and nurses don't have to see these things or know about them. If it was a healthy mother and a healthy baby; even if it was from rape or incest; at the point it is already viable; it is killing.< Presumably you mean it is murder, since all abortion is killing. Well then you must admit that by this principle of yours most abortion that occurs in this country is murder, just as I have said all along. Viability is an arbitrary term. One person may claim a child viable if it can breathe on its own. But is such a child indisputably viable? It is not because that child, without care of another, will die almost immediately. You might argue that the ability for another to care for the child apart from the mother establishes viability, and this is merely an arbitrary determination. The fact of its dependency upon someone, anyone, can easily be used to make a logical thrust toward its legal destruction. >I don't call it murder; since it isn't established as that. It would be totally wrong.< Dear me. By what principle can you judge it wrong and yet not murder? By your logic, Hitler did not commit murder, but was merely wrong. >But what say you to the babies that have no brain or missing internal organs? I say they will die if they have no brains. Otherwise, if their existence presents no innate threat to the entire life of another, we should love it just as we should love any other child. Your thrust ultimately attempts to justify the extermination of handicapped people. Mine ultimately loves and nurtures all humans presenting no innate threat to another. On what principle do I take my position? I will have to be brief. I take the position on the principle of life-- of existence. All living organisms tend toward life and self-defense. Like all life, even a cell naturally resists its destruction by assimilation, replication and by the fact that its membrane presents barriers to things that attempt to destroy it. If an entity threatens a living existence, then the threatened existence naturally has a tendency to ward it off. It is a tendency built into all of life. One may claim it right or wrong, but all one will be doing here is judging the very nature of life.