Sharks in the Septic Tank Message Board

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Solon who wrote (38159)	11/26/2001 1:33:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 82486

The fetus had nothing to do with the danger to the mother. The fetus is not trying to kill the mother. The fetus is innocent of intent. The fetus is a person guileless and guiltless. The fetus is guiltless and is not trying to kill its mother, but it is inaccurate to say it has nothing to do with the danger to the mother. Even when people equally contribute to a situation of life and death (such as two people, one life jacket)--it is not considered as self defence when one them forcibly takes the life jacket. If one person takes it from the other no, if one person just grabs a floating life jacket and the other person has none it isn't considered murder. Imagine the person left without the life jacket is the fetus. The person with the life jacket is the mother. The person without the life jacket is trying to hold on to the person with the life jacket. The seas are getting heavy and both will drown if they are supported by only the one life jacket. The person with the jacket could do nothing and have both die, or she could give the jacket to the person without one and die herself saving the other person, but she does not she pushes the person grabbing on to her away. He then drowns. Is she guilty of murder? This analogy doesn't explain the reason for any bias for the mother but it is an example of self defense against someone who is not trying to kill you. From a later post of yours (number 38494) - No it is not. If the life of the mother is at risk, the fetus is secondary. The courts have ruled that the fetus may (I believe that may be read as "must") be killed, if this will serve to remove the risk to the life of the mother, or the impairment of her health. I am told that 99+% of people are supportive of this bias. Of course, when caesarians can be performed without compromising the physical or emotional health of the mother, they may be done...if there is a doctor/mother consensus. It has been said that 99+% of people have a bias against the life of the fetus. I did not suggest that 99+% would support the idea that no risk at all should be allowed to the mother even to avoid any level or risk to the child. The 99+% that I was talking about would be when the mother's death was near certain if the child was allowed to develop any more. In most of those cases the fetus is going to die anyway. Cases where their is a choice and either the fetus or the mother can almost definitely live at the expense of having the other almost definitely die are very rare. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next