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: TigerPaw who wrote (160976)	7/15/2001 12:41:23 AM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

res- I don't think it would be a good idea to place incentives, probably financial, for women to get pregnant just to harvest the organs. The potential for abuse is very high. Interesting, that's the same argument I've seen people make regarding why we shouldn't use human stem cells. You make it sound like this is the desired offspring of a loving family. Remember that abortion pretty much means that that fetus is not wanted or an expensive abortion would not be the course taken. This is not China and abortion is forced upon women only in pathelogical circumstances (crazy boyfriends etc.) Killing a perfectly healthy nine month old fetus simply because it's an inconvenient hassle, is not the right answer either. There is a personal responsibility issue involved here. I would wager that our grandparents often had children they didn't want out of necessity, and then later were overjoyed they did. We have more ways in which to avoid pregnancy today then we can shake a stick at. But, so many of us want an easy quick-fix answer (after the fact), which alleviates our accountability and responsibility. Should invetro fertilization be outlawed because some of the embryos are certain to be destroyed, not just lost in the process? No I don't.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160976)	7/15/2001 12:51:55 AM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No just upon the unborn, whom *you* deny civil rights. ~SB~

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160976)	7/15/2001 8:40:45 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769667

if a fetus is not wanted----the FATHER and MOTHER should keep their pants pulled up. 90% of abortions are for reasons of "convenience" ... very selfish and self destructive too.

To: TigerPaw who wrote (160976)	7/15/2001 2:50:38 PM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

I don't think it would be a good idea to place incentives, probably financial, for women to get pregnant just to harvest the organs. The potential for abuse is very high. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why not? Women are given financial incentive to have babies to sell. Women are paid to have babies so that others can become parents. Why not allow organ sales. After all, according to you, the baby isn't a human until birth. A woman can abort anytime before birth if she can find the right Dr. to do it. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if pregnancies take place only for the harvesting of organs. But that should be alright too because the fetus isn't human until birth, hasn't the ability to know what is taking place i.e. isn't self aware, and isn't really human anyway, so why not? Either way the life that existed dies but it's all in the name of the well being of mankind and to help those that are alive achieve a better life. Where does mankind draw this line and why does he draw it there? M