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: Solon who wrote (38971)	11/27/2001 5:46:36 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

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? The "something to do with" the danger to the mother has nothing to do with guilt. If I fall from a hight and land on you killing us both, I have a lot to do with your death, but I have no guilt if I didn't jump. 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. But it is an example of taking action to defend yourself that causes someone else's death. 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. The court rulings would not have 99+% support. If you want to talk about them it is bringing up a new issue. I would have to see more specifics about the rulings but there is a good chance I would not agree with them. Also I never said that the mother or the doctor would have to prove anything 100%. It is probably impossible to prove anything completely 100%. 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.. There is a lot of confusion in many people's value systems. There are indeed people who are pro-life but either don't believe that the fetus is really a person, or who would make decisions that are inconsistent with that belief. People often make decisions in an emotional context rather then a purely rational one. The parents, the doctor and anyone else who might advice them don't know the fetus the way they know the mother. They haven't held him or her. There have been no conversations with the fetus. Emotional attachment, even from the parents is usually less then it would be for an already born baby or for the mother. If the decision is one of law then political concerns often come to the front. A ban of abortion in the US is very unlikely but a ban of abortion that doesn't allow for exceptions when the life of the mother is in danger doesn't even seem remotely possible. It's hard to even imagine it passing, so difficult to imagine that almost no one will ever push for it even if it is consistent with their beliefs. This is esp. true because if many cases if the mother dies the child will die as well. And some of the inconsistency arises from the fact that the pro-life coalition is made up of people with all different ideas, the beliefs of some may not be consistent with the beliefs or actions of others. You have many who are against abortion for religious reasons, and you have different religions, with different justifications. Some will just point to where a cleric told them abortion is wrong, or quote something from the Bible or other holy book that supports the idea that abortion is wrong. Others might have complex well developed theological arguments against abortion. Still others are against abortion but not directly because of religious teachings. They might feel abortion destroys a human life, or they might just react in horror to abortion without a calculated reason. As in any major controversial political issue that I can think of there are inconsistencies and unsophisticated arguments all over the place on all sides. Another group of people might believe that abortion end's a human life but still be completely pro-choice (not just when the life of the mother is in danger) , because they no their is no consensus on this issue and they either don't want the government to impose a solution that has only minority support or because they worry about practical negative consequences of an abortion ban. For example they might feel that abortion will not be greatly reduced but just be pushed in to the "back alleys" . I remember you arguing that point several thousand posts ago. (Note: I am not claiming that you where arguing that abortion is killing a human, just that outlawing it might not reduce it's occurrence). There are other people who while they believe that a fetus is a human, are only willing to ban some abortions, either because of fear of some negative consequence or because they place preeminent value on either achieving a perceived compromise, or on the will of the majority. The principle has been enacted in most or all state legislatures across the land. It is the principle which is being discussed. Not at the beginning of the conversation. You slipped it in, and I continued talking about the original idea. If the principle is that no effort should be made to save the child if it causes any risk to the mother then it is a principle that I disagree with and with which you would not get the 99% agreement I mentioned in earlier posts. Tim