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: Lane3 who wrote (19318)	7/26/2001 9:25:02 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I hope you liked my line, then... The problem is that as we advance, we could - in theory, and eventually practice - design/save/create a human life out of nearly any human cell. Hence if you start from the proposition that any life which could one day become human is sacred, as a potential human being, then you reach the ethical nonsense of terminating potential humans every time you shed skin (never mind periods, or the old Catholic bans on masturbation, etc...). I simply take the pragmatic view - call it ruthless, or realistic, or whatever: that a human being, a new life, is something which must be both willed and desired. The technical details of its conception are irrelevant, what matters is the successful birth. Nor do we have a shortage of fertile women, or willing mothers, or children... we are not forced by nature to treasure every barely-viable life as required for species (or even tribal) survival. Hence early abortion I believe should be allowed on demand, and the use of unwanted genetic material in so beneficial a cause I feel is a positive good. Early is up to at least 16 weeks, and I'd prefer to see abortion unrestricted up to 22-24 (albeit with a mandatory treble check, say 7 & 14 days prior to abortion, that it is wanted). For the 'borderline' cases as in the article, where some defect might be curable in utero, I feel it's still up to the mother (the father may surely have his views, and any worthwhile parent will listen - but the host controls her own body, no one else). If she wants to risk surgery etc. on the baby - and is willing to live with the consequences - then so be it. If she would rather have an abortion at (say) 18 weeks, fine: and if she wants to try again to have a healthy child - possibly using scientific rather than natural conception, to avoid genetic defects - then, still, her choice. I'm very reluctant to concede late-stage abortion (after 24 weeks or so) save in dire necessity, but even then, arguably, ultimately, if the mother bearing that child truly does not want it, then she should not have to bear what she views as a parasite, feeding off her blood... those who would gainsay her can go and bear their own children: or go and save and better the lives of those already born and suffering, which is far more worthy. The rights of the living, who know and must suffer what they do, outweigh the rights of those who are dead; how much more must they outweigh the putative rights of those who - without the active consent and aid of the living - will never even exist. Not that I'll convince anyone, and I can't really be bothered arguing it with those who take a position based on ideals rather than pragmatism, but that's my stance.