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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3414)	12/15/2002 12:48:47 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Your historical account is bogus. It is true that custom varied widely in various times and places, but in many places, the child in the womb was regarded as living, and the only issue was how soon it was "quickened". In any event, it is obviously arbitrary to have removal from the womb as the standard for life, since the only difference between the child prior to birth and after birth is the life support system. That automatically raises the question of where the line is drawn pre- birth. Since the same organism, in different stages of development, exists from conception, I find it hard to draw a line later than conception. Suppose the matter were doubtful, though. Let me ask you, if there were a button that you could push where there was a 25% chance that you would be killing a baby, would it be moral to push it (we are abstracting from justificatory considerations)? No, in and of itself, it would not be. It is no more moral, even if the line between mass of cells and baby is controversial, to abort, with certain carved out exceptions, like grave risk to the life of the mother. Should we mandate abortion when we consider the parents unfit? Plenty of people have flourished in the face of difficult circumstances. Saying that they would be better off dead if they are not born inton ideal circumstances, or even implying it, is revolting......