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: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (364229)	2/27/2003 12:55:11 PM
From: SecularBull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

ON ABORTION: Lizzie, the right to life is an absolute right. The right to make life and lifestyle choices is secondary to that. We cannot grant the latter right if in so doing it infringes upon the absolute right of another to life itself. The pregnant woman, through her own lifestyle choice, has created another life. Her power over that new life is now limited in the sense that her rights to choice are now subordinate to its right to life. Her choice was on the front side, and that choice should have consequences for her and not for an innocent third party. The only dilemma for my argument is in the case of rape or incest. That's a tough one, and I am inclined to grant the woman the right to an abortion, since she was most likely deprived of her right to choose to have intercourse to begin with. I find it morally difficult to require her to give birth to a child she had no control over creating. Yet, the dilemma is still there, since we would still be sanctioning the killing of an unborn child. ~SB~

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (364229)	2/27/2003 1:50:38 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

The problem with your argument is plainly before us. To put it simply, you are trying to force into one category scenarios that are wholly different. You are trying to deny a natural right to a healthy being on the basis of the natural defect of an unhealthy one. Completely illogical. Parents have no obligation to give body parts to children whether they are born or unborn. Here is what you've done: Parent and child #1- parent an adult, child a 2 year old that has bone cancer. Parent and "child"#2- parent a pregnant woman, "child" a 5 mos old healthy fetus. By now you ought to be able to see the fallacy. Nevertheless, to help you I will show what you should have done: Parent and child #1- parent an adult, child a 2 year old that has bone cancer. Parent and "child"#2- parent a pregnant woman, "child" a 5 mos old fetus that has some sort of serious health problem. In BOTH cases the parent has no obligation to give body parts to the child. But consider these scenarios (which are in fact the truth in nature that condemns abortion morally and that ought to condemn it in law): Parent and child #1- parent an adult, child a 2 year old healthy child. Parent and "child"#2- parent a pregnant woman, "child" a 5 mos old healthy fetus. Child #1 has no problem, but parents decide to put it outside indefinitely, never caring for it. Child #2 has no problem, but parents decide to put it outside indefinitely, never caring for it. In both cases the child cannot survive on its own. Yet the law protects child #1, condemning the parents. In the case of child #2 the law actually pays for the procedure. The law is wrong and clearly so.

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (364229)	3/1/2003 4:52:24 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Your "argument" is easily refuted. Yes, in the case of Child #1, the parent is not REQUIRED to be a good Samaritan to donate marrow. The reason is that the parent did not CAUSE the state of "life versus death" dependency. The state of dependency was caused by the child becoming sick with cancer. The case of Child #2 is totally different! The state of "life versus death" dependency WAS ENTIRELY CAUSED BY THE PARENT'S OWN ACTION. Consider the following analogy: Person A is viciously attacked by someone. Person A has an extremely rare blood type. Person A is in dire condition and will require a series of operations and blood donations over the next nine months in order to survive. Person B is the only other known person who is a viable blood donor for Person A. The blood donations required to save Person A would be inconvenient for Person B, but they would not endanger the life of Person B. The police wake up person B in the middle of the night to ask for help in this situation. Should Person B be required to donate blood? Now, let's change the situation slightly... Assume Person B was the person who actually assaulted Person A. Does this change your answer to the previous question?