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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (12816)	2/28/2000 1:20:00 AM
From: nihil	Respond to of 769670

Not all killing of human beings is a crime. In Oregon, one may legally assist in suicide in some circumstances. A legal executioner or person who signs a legal death warrant is not a criminal (although in my opinion he should be). In some states, the accidental killing of a person in an accident is not a crime. An accidental killing of a patient in a medical procedure is usually not a crime. My problem with abortion is that I both believe (1) that killing children should be a crime, and (2) that a woman has an absolute right to control her body. I believe a woman, under natural law, has an absolute right to kill herself. The State may well delay such suicide, to determine if some psychiatric treatment or a pill might change her mind (my wife believes her right is absolute). I believe a woman, mad or sane, under biblical and natural law, has a right to cut off any part of her body she wishes -- including her uterus or entire placenta ("if you right hand offends you cut it off!") I believe any woman mad or sane has an absolute right to remove any thing whatever from her womb or fallopian tubes (in a tubal pregnancy). She also has the right to direct someone else, a surgeon, to remove the fetus, or polyp, or cancer, or any growth whatever. The woman does not have the right to direct the surgeon to kill a viable fetus, but the surgeon has no obligation to keep a cancer alive (unless it is sentient). The surgeon is morally obligated to do whatever he can to save the life of the fetus. If he can't. he can't. But the surgeon must take every step possible at its own or public expense to save the fetus without risking the life of the mother-abortionist. Should the surgeon succeed in saving the life of the fetus, there will be,presumably, a legal contest over custody. I won't even touch that one. But I believe a woman has a moral right to abandon any child or fetus if she has taken reasonable care to see it well taken care of, such as handing it over to a skilled surgeon in a modern hospital. Of course, I believe a woman (or man) has the absolute right to castrate herself or to direct a surgeon to cut out her sexual organs. I also believe that a mother has the absolute right to have her children castrated (until we change the law to give children absolute control over their bodies.) Thus I believe that Elian has a natural right to stay in the United States (whether his relatives will keep him or not) under the natural (and legal) right of refuge. I believe a child has a natural right, not yet recognized by law like many others, to escape his parents for any reason whatever. Guess I am an absolute individual libertarian.