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 (3508)	12/28/2002 4:49:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

If you consider a fetus or an embryo a person and can persuade yourself that the Constitution thinks so, too Its not necessary for the constitution to think so. Its only necessary that it doesn't explicitly state otherwise. If you think it can, you are either extremely sentimental about the matter or you have more confidence in government than I do. I'm not so sure it would do a great job but an imperfect job would be better then no protection at all IMO. We could end up with a law that says we must continue life support for a fetus when we would not do so for a baby. What a mess that would be. Even in a country that would support the right to life cause or in a country that would support the idea that its a matter for the states because the constitution says nothing about it (and then of course within that framework in a state that supports the pro life cause), it would be unlikely that we would get something like that. Any unusual life support would probably happen after the child is born, in which case the law would be the same as it would be for any other baby. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (3508)	1/4/2003 2:09:31 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

In the case of the embryo, I find that notion preposterous. But setting any other standard is, IMO, equally preposterous. Saying that the embryo is a person on, say, day 95 but not on day 95, is preposterous, as though the turning of a clock one second should have any bearing on whether a life is or is not a human being. If you find that the point of conception is not the point at which the created life should be considered a legal person, at what point DO you make that distinction? That, for me, is the critical problem, and I see no justifiable alternative to either saying the infant is not a person until it is actually born, or saying it is a person at conception. Any other position may have political acceptability, but no moral justification. Some people suggest that the point should be the moment when the fetus is viable outside the womb. That has, or course, several serious problems. One, how do you know on, say, day 127 whether the fetus would or would not be viable? Two, whether a fetus is a protected human life depends on whether the mother is. For two fetuses at the identical stage of development, if one is in a well equipped ER it would be viable, while the other, whose mother is holed up on a remote cabin in the Alaska wilderness without phone or radio, is not. Again, if we merely want a political solution, we can pick a day, any day, and declare that to be the day, as we do with making people legal adults at the stroke of midnight on a certain day -- one second they are legal minors, the next they are legal adults. But while that may be a politically acceptable answer, it has no moral integrity, nor does it try to.