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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (37191)	11/17/2001 4:36:36 PM
From: J. C. Dithers	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm only a layman also, but I can't conceive of any circumstance or condition where deliberately killing a pregnant woman would be the only way to save a fetus growing inside of her. If there were some such circumstance, then I don't believe either law or morality would support taking, or exchanging, one life for another. I think the only moral or legal course would be to expend best effort on saving both lives. The difference between the two lives may be that the fetus cannot survive outside of the mother, and thus that intervening in any way means the death of the fetus. But then, not intervening means the death of both. In any event, I don't believe these rare instances provide any illumination to the abortion debate. I think it is absurd to envision a situation where a surgeon comes out to the waiting room and says, "Here's the deal ... I can save your wife, or I can save your baby ... which would you prefer? It's your choice."