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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (4250)	2/1/2001 5:44:12 AM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Respond to of 82486

I suppose the question bland is really trying to ask here is this: at what point does "a woman's right to choose" cease to be a right and suddenly become a crime? And why? What happens "in between" this near instantaneous crossover that makes such an immediate, real, and substantial difference?

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (4250)	2/1/2001 8:56:06 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There are no absolute rights and wrongs for a relativist agnostic. I have to decide everything for myself- since I have no book that tells me what I should think. In many cultures you could expose babies you don't want. I believe this still goes on in China and India. I would argue that this is dangerous- simply because the already born are exactly like us- just smaller- and so at any time the law could be changed to let people like you and me be done away with- which is not in my best interest, but I don't actually see anything wrong with it in absolute terms. Killing is unappealing because we, personally, do not wish to die. This is the root of the distaste for it, personally and in religion (imo). Because I don't like it, I certainly think it is wrong- but I do not think it is not wrong in any absolute sense.

To: bela_ghoulashi who wrote (4250)	2/1/2001 9:36:06 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

<< If it's not wrong to kill an unborn child, then why isn't it equally "not wrong" to kill a child once it is born, or at any time of the mother's own choosing? >> I think that's an important question. The infanticide question. But I have a a sort of adjacent question for you, bland. You've asked a question about "a child." Do you consider a fertilized egg a child? Well, two questions: Do you oppose RU486? Oh, okay, three questions: You feel abortion can "be justified under various circumstances," so I'm asking if there are any circumstances under which it is "justified" for a mother to, a half hour after the baby is born (in your example) kill her baby. (By "justified" I don't mean emotionally understandable, etc.) The reason I ask this is to try to pinpoint with this hypothetical question where lies, in your mind, the difference between the embryo or fetus you think, under certain circumstances, it is justified to abort, and the infant it isn't.