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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (37017)	11/15/2001 5:40:22 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

The law makes a decision to allow a mother to kill an unborn child, but not a born one. It's simply a legal distinction- and I don't have a problem with arbitrary legal distinctions- I find all laws to be essentially arbitrary (why these laws and not others? The possibilities for what the laws could be are endless). So that is my opinion. I think the law is based on 1.convenience, it's nice for parents who really don't want a child to have an out, and 2.it keeps away the messy debate of why not kill anyone you don't want around, born or not. There is no reason parents shouldn't have the legal right to kill their born children. You could have laws that made it so. We just don't happen to have those laws.

To: J. C. Dithers who wrote (37017)	11/15/2001 7:47:29 PM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

: If it is permissible for an expectant mother to terminate a pregnancy, at say, six months, why should it not be permissible for the mother of a Preemie who is now six months old to terminate that life? In the latter case, the mother would be charged with murder. Why should that be? Both "lives" are at exactly the same stage. Not quite the same stage... I see birth as making a difference. In one case you have an independent, viable life... in the other, a growth parasitic on the host for blood, oxygen, nutrients. I feel it is finally and rightly up to the host to decide what part of her body should be separated and given claim to her and her partner's wealth, time, assets, attention... If the host of a parasitic growth does not want to continue paying for that growth - paying on the off-chance that said growth may one day become valuable to her - who, WHO has any right to say her nay? (If she wants to bear it - fine. No problemo). By what right do you demand that some one carries a parasite to fruition, at THEIR cost, THEIR pain, THEIR dislocation, because YOU wish it so? Hmm. We choose to grant the parasite new rights after fruition. SO? This might be justifiable if those requiring the fruition were required to care for the newborn, and pay all its costs, and spend their time on its upkeep... so pay up or shut up. And if you stay back when it's time to pay, don't tell someone else that they have to pay to meet your wishes. This is of course ignoring any compensation for the time, pain and labour of giving birth... pun included. BTW, the 'life' thing? Cancers can be kept alive, and multiplying, and will feed so long as nutrients are provided. So will a virus, or a bacterium. Because a body is capable of life outside its natural host, given the blessings and the efforst and the knowledge and research of science, does not mean it must be so. Quick freebie questions: True: stem and embryonic cell research will save many lives if permitted to continue, and allow many potential lives to be saved also... and implies that ultimately any body cell could form a new 'life'... - are you in favour of saving potential lives in this way? - what if no embryos are used up in the process? - will you then class a tumour as a potential life...?