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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bob who wrote (357020)	2/10/2003 3:52:26 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

no that isn't it I don't want to get into this with prolife and all you males here that have so many strong feelings on this issue (I always have to wonder why it is men who are so concerned about this anyway... ) The human rights argument says, that a fetus, by definition is infringing upon the mother's human rights from day one. She is the one who is allowing it to live and grow. Without her, it dies. In order not to violate the mother's human rights, we can pass laws saying no abortion, but we will need to remove the fetus and place it into an incubator and find some alternative means of support vs. the mother's body. So the simple situation is, outlaw abortions, but allow mothers to "give birth" of a live fetus at 6 weeks or so. If the fetus can live with appropriate life support then all is well, nobody's human rights have been violated. But you cannot ask the mother to continue to give life to this other "human" any more than I can ask my child to donate bone marrow so I can live. It is quite a dichotomy for the legal scholars and I suspect this human rights issue keeps abortion legal in the US forever.