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: pezz who wrote (51089)	6/1/1999 9:18:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

You have really articulated the issue! Thank you pezz, very cool as usual

To: pezz who wrote (51089)	6/1/1999 9:28:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Pezz: Sorry to frustrate you but these are thorny issues. Actually I do believe a fetus is not quite a human but also not just a bag of cells. I think it splits the difference. I believe the longer the pregnancy continues the more difficult it is to make the distinction between a fetus and a human. I do believe in giving the utmost possible deference to the potential the fetus has to develop into a "full- growed" (delivered at term) human. However, I also believe in balancing the needs of the mother, the fetus and the father in deciding when it is right or wrong to terminate a pregnancy. A three year old child is definitely a different story and I could not justify killing a "full-growed" human. I also believe you have misconstrued Neocon's argument but I will let him take that up with you. It does indeed make sense to me too as another way to look at a complex issue. It is most certainly about life and showing respect for life which should not be snuffed out as a matter of convenience. JLA

To: pezz who wrote (51089)	6/2/1999 11:13:00 AM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Congratulations <<This is not about life it is about controling for the sake of idealogy.>> I think you are getting somewhere with this. A couple of days ago you pointed out that the laws were about "controlling," I agree with you even though Neocon and jla have skirted that. What else would we have laws for? I still disagree with you on principle but against the advice of my "inner child" I'm going to withhold my name calling tendency just for the moment. So, what are you accomplishing? If it is your goal to rationally dehumanize the concept of pregnancy, I think you are making progress. If you are challenging the powers that be (governmental) to prove the existance or starting point of humanness vs nonhumanness I think you have a sound arguement that it can't be done. If you then want to use the structure of the legal system to say, if you can't prove the existance of a human soul, then you can't establish a system for punishing someone for taking a "human" life or interfering with its development, I think you are absolutely on target. As with any attempt to control human populations, by mass murder, on the planet; history has shown that the maniacs first have to dehumanize or objectify their victums. Congratulations you maniacal piece of shit. Whoops