PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH 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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: SecularBull who wrote (364126)	2/27/2003 12:14:59 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) of 769670

I challenge you to make a logical argument supporting the killing of unborn children. I think you'll make an argument, but it will lack logical backing. You want rights, while denying rights to a unique, human signature. How DO you defend that?? OK just this one last post on this issue and that will be it. The argument (which is not mine) goes like this. Parent and child #1- parent an adult, child a 2 year old. Parent and "child"#2- parent a pregnant woman, "child" a 5 mos old fetus. Say child #1 develops bone cancer and requires a bone marrow transplant. The base of personal rights in our society does not require that parent #1 provide his/her bone marrow for child #1 to live. To do so would be a violation of parent #1's personal rights, we do not violate one persons rights in favor of another even if it is a parent/child situation. Parent/child #2 (pregnant woman/fetus). Child #2 needs parent#2 to live- parent#2 does not need child #2 to live. Based on the precedent set in case #1 above, we cannot voilate the personal rights of parent #2 in order for another person to live. To do so, would require changing the rules in the situation #1 above, which I think we all agree cannot be upheld by any court. Child #2 can be delivered(induced- this is possible) and offered every opportunity to survive on its own. Of course we know a 5 mos old fetus cannot survive on its own so doctors don't bother with live birth inducement and this is a pregnancy termination. The high courts know about this dichotomy and the minute this issue comes before the courts this argument will be heard, I'm sure. There are smaller battles being fought now and for those battles the RvW supporters don't want to admit that the fetus is a "child" which the argument above requires. But eventually it will come down to this. I would say the prolifers should figure out how to provide life support for a fetus outside of the womb. If they can figure that out then this issue is solved, put your angst and energy towards some constructive use for a change.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next