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: TimF who wrote (38095)	11/21/2001 5:19:37 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

(I do not consider the fetus as a legal person with legal rights, so such references in my current posts are assuming a position that is not mine). You are confusing self defense with murder. The fetus was created with intent of the mother. It was placed in the womb with intent of the mother. The fetus had nothing to do with the danger to the mother. The fetus is not trying to kill the mother. The fetus is innocent of intent. The fetus is a person guileless and guiltless. If you pull a child into a cave and the cave becomes accidentally sealed off, and oxygen will take 87 minutes to get there, so that it is possible that only one of you may live...will you claim that killing the child was self defense?? When every intention was yours; when all control was yours...would you claim that the murder (I mean the killing) you committed was self defence?? Of course you would not. You could not. Even when people equally contribute to a situation of life and death (such as two people, one life jacket)--it is not considered as self defence when one them forcibly takes the life jacket. Of course, we can all understand the self interest that informs the brutality of the stronger, or less caring party. But the State has the power to equalize both strength and sentiment in the interest of justice. So why should the older person (the mother) be favored over the younger person (the fetus), when it comes to a question of justice?? What does the age of a person have to do with justice?? When I used self defense of the fetus as reciprocal to your claim of motherly self defense, I was referring to the State acting to safeguard the "SELF" of the fetus--not to the self action which is considered in current legal jargon. Why do almost 100% of people favor killing the younger person (when the two people are mother and child), when either of the lifes may be saved? Most parents prefer to die BEFORE their children. So why do YOU claim that almost 100 % of parents (when push comes to shove) prefer their children to die first??? More importantly (to remove self interest from the equation) why SHOULD almost 100% of people support and assist the older mother as she kills her younger child?? It is you who characterized this scenario as self defense. HORSE TURDS. Cold blooded murder. Do you agree?