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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (208071)	12/7/2001 5:03:41 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 769670

The theoretical framework for a discussion of abortion: 1. Autonomy- If a woman has an absolute right to control over her own body, she cannot be forced to carry an unwanted fetus one second longer than she cares to. On the other hand, no one has an absolute right to control over his or her own body. For example, I may be incarcerated; forced to give blood in evidence; prevented from seducing a minor; restrained for self- protection if deemed incompetent; forced to have a medical procedure if deemed incompetent; and so forth. The bar to interference is high, but not insuperable. 2. Individual rights- The state has a commitment to the preservation of individual rights, and the vindication of justice, having taken away the right of private reprisal, to ensure the peace. Thus, there is a legitimate question about whether the fetus has any rights that we should respect, at any point. Ordinarily, we do not make condition of development or dependency a qualification on rights: for example, a person in a coma retains a right to life, and to his personal property, even if he is incapable of acting on his own behalf. Only brain- death, where recovery is deemed impossible, can be used as a criterion to terminate his right to life, as long as he can be sustained through normal medical treatment. Given fetal viability, it must be shown that there is a reason to deem the child inside the womb differently than the child outside the womb. If there is no such showing, we should admit that the fetus has, at least at viability, the rights of an infant. It is, of course, possible to argue that those rights extend prior to viability, I only use viability as a clear demarcation. 3. In addition to the vindication of individual rights, the state has a compelling interest in maintaining certain standards, for the sake of the community. For example, we regulate matters of public health and safety. Additionally, we regulate certain matters on the basis that allowing the value expressed to be flouted is detrimental to the maintenance of public order. For example, many people support animal welfare laws on the grounds that unnecessary cruelty should be discouraged, as breeding bad character, not because they think animals have rights that must be respected. Thus, there may be an interest in forbidding or circumscribing the practice of abortion on the grounds that it flouts the principle of the sanctity of life, and is a slippery slope leading to a relaxation of vigilance in protecting the most vulnerable amongst us. 4. As a matter of policy, apart from the autonomy issue, one could argue that it is a net plus not to bring unwanted children into the world. Of course, that argument has a couple of weaknesses: first, that many children who are unwanted to begin with are cherished in the end, and second, that most people, even in bad family situations or orphanages, think they are better off alive than dead.