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: The Philosopher who wrote (3550)	1/6/2003 9:01:29 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 7720

You have at other times, as I recall, expressed concern about partial birth abortions, implying, if I read you right, that you would support a ban on them except to save the life of the mother. You don't read me right. You're inside the box--the notion that those bothered by something must be in favor of a law banning it. Or those who oppose a law against something must be supporting that something. I'm waaaayyy too libertarian for that box. I'm entertaining a third way, a way to give consideration to the pre-born without affording them personhood and citizenship rights, and trying to engage others on alternate approaches. At a minimum, I'm trying to communicate to those stuck in the box that you aren't necessarily evil if you oppose legal restrictions on abortion.

To: The Philosopher who wrote (3550)	1/6/2003 9:34:58 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Should she have the right to decide entirely on her own whether to have the abortion? That seems a pretty simple question. She has the right to do it right now. I wouldn't advocate taking that right away on the basis of the right to life of the fetus. That would violate too many of my key principles plus I think it's a slippery slope into the mire. You know how I abhor unstable systems. <g> My personal injury approach was intended more to allow punishment of third parties who harm a fetus causing personal injury to the mother and other family members when the baby is wanted. It seems to me that there should be a stiffer penalty for, say, giving a woman a beating resulting in a miscarriage. Laws could provide compensation, penalize the offending party, and serve as a deterrent for harming a wanted fetus. That was my main objective--giving more legal consideration to a wanted fetus--protection from a third party more than from the woman carrying the fetus. I think that approach could be extended, though, to include injury to other interested parties, such as the father, who might want to claim injury to himself against the aborting woman. In your example, if the paralized father wanted to assert a claim of injury from the loss to him of offspring, I can envision some sort of arbitration that might result in restriction the woman's right to abort. Or at least the threat of it might get her to at least deliver and make the baby available for adoption. If the father supports his wife, though, I'd be hard pressed to think of another sufficiently interested party. Potential adoptive parents would be too much of a stretch. If restriction on abortion were based on injury to an acknowledge interested party who is, in fact, a certifiable person, then there is a basis for constraining the rights of the woman, IMO. My problem is constraining her rights based on the imagined rights of the pre-person. IMO, the woman should have the baby and make it available to an adoptive couple, assuming there are available adoptive couples.