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 (38794)	11/27/2001 12:06:24 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"The fetus is guiltless and is not trying to kill its mother, but it is inaccurate to say it has nothing to do with the danger to the mother" You have acknowlwedged that my statement of foetal innocence followed, explained, and qualified my statement that "the fetus had nothing to do with the danger to the mother." So why do you add that "it is inaccurate to say it has nothing to do with the danger to the mother"?? Perhaps you will share with me, then, what it is that you believe the fetus has to do with the danger to the mother in the context in which I framed the question and answer as related to the guilt of the fetus? If you have something else in mind which is relevent to what the fetus has to do with the danger to the mother, then please let me know. I can hardly respond to your insinuation that something relevent has been left out of my assessment of fetal guilt ("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"), unless you do more than simply tell me my statement was inaccurate. "Inaccurate" in a way which is worth your stating but not worth your explanation?? This analogy doesn't explain the reason for any bias for the mother but it is an example of self defense against someone who is not trying to kill you. It does not explain the bias against the mother; nor is it an example of a person forming and acting on an intention to kill another. The 99+% that I was talking about would be when the mother's death was near certain if the child was allowed to develop any more Whatever, the court rulings include the health of the mother under the rubric which you have put forth. So consider your insight to simply be more fully rounded by the facts, if you wish. There would hardly be any point in the value judgment if the doctor needed to "PROVE" that the mother would 100% die should the fetus not be killed. I suppose you can see that. In most of those cases the fetus is going to die anyway I won't ask what expertise informs such a seemingly dismissive and cavalier judgment. Obviously, it is irrelevent to the principle whether you are just tossing it out carelessly, or whether it is the manner in which you prefer to introduce FACTS. It is irrelevent to a principle whether 89 % of people or 99% of people understand it. If the principle was that the MOTHER ought to be killed if the life or health of the unborn child (as you have called the fetus) was at risk...then a lot of husbands and daughters, and sons, and mothers would possibly be distressed. For some reason, the actions of these people (and the policies they direct their elected representatives to enact) show a clear and hideous preference for the life of the older person over the life of the younger one. This seems to run contrary to the general thought that parents would not wish to outlive their children--but would be more inclined to offer their own lives where it might save the life of their child. There seems to be a clear confusion (one that I should have given to Yogi Berra) that exists in the value system of those who claim that the unborn are children, people, and persons deserving of recognition under the Constitution--just as any other...while simultaneously directing and supporting their legal representatives to pass laws which ensure their ability to kill their "kids" up to a certain age without it being considered a criminal offense. _____________ "Cases where their is a choice and either the fetus or the mother can almost definitely live at the expense of having the other almost definitely die are very rare." Again, whether your expert statement here is true, false, contrived, biased or intentionally self serving--well, that is irrelevent. The principle has been enacted in most or all state legislatures across the land. It is the principle which is being discussed. It is the "clear confusion" which insults the intelligence and the sensibilities of those struggling to find a morally valid response to the various abortion issues...