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 (3419)	12/16/2002 8:37:39 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Personhood and citizenship are two different things. (For example, slaves were not citizens, and neither are resident aliens). In any event, the various states had different laws governing abortion at different points in history. All I object to is making out that there has been a persistent consensus that birth is the "great divide". That is not the case. You stated categorically that people should not come into the world without an assurance of a good family. Sorry, there are implications to such a statement. The difference between not conceiving and a morning after pill is that there is a conceptus in the second case. That is fairly obvious. The "button" argument pertains to the first trimester. Even if we acknowledge controversy about the humanity of the fetus, we cannot be sure enough to push the button. Introducing counterbalancing considerations complicates the argument, but it is definitely a reason to be uncomfortable with, and at least reconsider, an abortion regime that allows abortion on demand. The "line" has to do with when we can consider the result of conception to have humanity, so the invocation of "kissing and intercourse" is irrelevant. The line cannot rationally be birth, since there is no material difference between the child before leaving the womb and after doing so. The only difference is method of life- support. Similarly, there is no real difference between the fetus in the second trimester and the third, except viability. That it is human is uncontested, and as neonatology progresses, premies can be saved at ever earlier ages. Thus, the only possible cut off is somewhere before the second semester. That is where the button argument comes in: since it is the same organism from conception to maturation into an articulated human, it is at least arguable that humanity begins at conception. It is a human organism. Should humanity depend solely on external form? Even if the argument were inconclusive, it raises the stakes for aborting, just as the 25% button situation does. First, I cannot impose anything on anybody unless there is a widespread social consensus. Second, I am not likely to personally impact the deliberations of all legislatures. Therefore, why should I feel uncomfortable in expressing a strong opinion on the matter? My arguments will definitely be "vetted". Third, I do not see any wiggle room, from a rational perspective, except in respect of the first trimester. I am as confident in the soundness of my reasoning as an abolitionist would have been in deploring chattel slavery and wishing to outlaw it. The only place I can contemplate compromise as personally acceptable is when viewing issues like the morning after pill.