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 (3677)	1/13/2003 8:06:38 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

"Your basis is the rights of the fetus to live. My basis is the right of the mother to produce offspring. I think my approach has a better chance of success but you're not even considering it..." Ah, you missed my whole point. I figured we would have common ground regarding the mother and I was first to make note of her legitimate claims. I set that aside as a "given" and went on to pursue a question about the unborn "child." The question was, can you be held liable for harm to a "person" who is not yet a person. The debate then becomes at what point is liability to the person who will be born an issue. If he/she is born with disabling conditions should I (the puncher) be held responsible for his struggle or just for the mother's difficulties. If you decide I am only responsible for the difficulty the mother has, why do I feel a ping everytime I see the baby / talk to the kid / watch the young adult struggle to bag merchandise at WalMart/ Get into the bus at the group home...etc? Should I be more cavalier toward the person struggling to make it, knowing that my punch is the cause of the life long struggle. Not to take anything away from the mother and father who may suffer greatly but what about the kid who suffered damage? "You want the SOB punished and so do I." Sure but that was not a big thing for me. The big thing is at what point did he hurt the person. If it was in utero then did the person's humanity exist at that time. This was the new perspective I was hoping to bring to the discussion. It becomes the same argument at some point. "I think my approach has a better chance of success but you're not even considering it..." I agree that your approach to getting the perp punished (injuries to the mom) is more likely to succeed in the current social and legal climate but am not ready to simply wash out any claims the child may have. "Regarding the trade-off, I take it that you were basing that comment on my cumulative posting on the subject of abortion..." Yes. And trying to pull a different strand from a pretty worn topic... the tendency toward dehumanization by one side toward another (not just on this topic but on most where human needs are juxtaposed).