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: Solon who wrote (7136)	3/2/2001 2:48:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

My understanding from you, then, is that people have a right to die provided they do not physically harm others. Society has made it clear that fundamental rights should not apply unequally between persons. Fundamental rights should not be prejudiced by color, creed, gender, disabilities or any other factors. And this is the way it is now. However, under your belief system, this would lead us to a rather unfortunate conflict in society: All people, except pregnant women, would have the right to die. Pregnant women would NEVER have the right to die, regardless of who is standing near them. I would say pregnant woman have the same rights as anyone else in this situation. They have the right to harm or kill themselves as long as they do not harm or kill anyone else. Having the same rights in this case does not mean they have the same choice available to them, just as the fact that a rich and famous person and I both have a right to free speech does not mean that I can easily get a large audience for my views. Bill Clinton can buy a full page add in the New York Times every day or have a press conference (that the press will actually attend). I can not do these things but I do not have less rights to free speech then he does. Also a minor point - The pregnant woman would be able to kill herself after her pregnancy ends. Then, there is the question of enforcement, and punishment/penalties. Obviously, you can't punish a pregnant woman for succeeding in killing herself; But what if she fails? How much invasion is permitted or necessary to prevent her from her attempts to claim this right? These are fundamental questions about the nature of the society we all help to create. I don't have a specific answer for you now, but in general society does intervene when someone becomes a threat to his or her self and others. A lesser level of intervention often occurs even when someone attempts to commit suicide in a way that doesn't harm any one else. I know that you don't think of the fetus as being a person or having rights, but if we look at a situation where someone is putting other people in danger by their suicide attempts what would you do to them? Since you usually ask for specifics I'll provide three cases but if you have something more general besides these three cases I'd like to here it because I'm looking more for a general principle then a response to one specific situation 1 - A person who tries to commit murder/suicide with his or her newborn children. The problem with using this as an analogy is that you can take the child away from the parent in this situation. 2- Someone who has repeatedly tried to commit suicide in dangerous ways, say by using explosives, or trying to get to a high place over a public street from which he plans to jump, but who has been stopped more then once. 3 - I suicidal conjoined twin, who shares a vital organ with his or her twin. Tim