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 (17212)	6/20/2001 6:22:45 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you wish to pretend that society can grant personhood to an embryo without it leading into criminal and cibvil charges on a daily basis, and without destroying the ethical framework that our social mores and our legal case law upholds and advances, then you are only pretending. If embryos were truly persons then society (as well as the mother) would have an inviolate obligation to protect them from abuse, injury, and death--and to punish any and all persons who contributed or counselled any violation of the person's rights to LIFE, LIBERTY, and the PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS. Not exactly. There are principles of self-defense which arise. Also, you can discuss violation of rights without committing any infraction of law -- that's called freedom of speech. It's true that anyone who performed an abortion except to save the life of the mother would be committing murder. I don't see that this would end civilization -- this has been the law at many times in history, and I don't see civilization having ended. Your scenario is too abstract and indefinite to address closely. Please give me examples of the kinds of behavior which you think upholding the personhood of the embryo would lead to which would end civilization.

To: Solon who wrote (17212)	6/20/2001 6:34:21 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Now, we can uphold those principles of equality when it comes to color issues, etc. But the neither the comparison nor the ability exists when we say that an embryo is a person and therefore has equal rights, etc. etc. etc. Equal rights, of course, don't mean identical rights. A twelve year old child doesn't have the right to drive, no matter how much it would enhance his pursuit of happiness. A five year old child can't commit murder. A sixteen year old doesn't have the right to contract, to marry, etc. The particular rights given to the embryo would be consistent with its nature and character. They would not necessarily be identical to the rights accorded to full adults. I don't know what sorts of situations you think would arise with an embryo having rights that would destroy civilization when the rights accorded to one day old babies haven't destroyed civilization.