SI
SI
discoversearch

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: SecularBull who wrote (364275)2/27/2003 1:25:13 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 769670
 
Furthermore, the decision to not provide the bone marrow is not in and of itself the same as the mother killing the child. It will usually result in the death of the child, but it is not the cause of death.

No, the RvW supporters agree that the current procedures will be changed to inducing live birth of a fetus (which cannot survive) ... on ethical grounds this is necessary, right now nobody does it but it is possible. That is the ultimate outcome of a revisit of RvW. So if your primary complaint is the procedure of abortion itself, then we agree. Just induce live birth whenever and that takes care of the issue. Focus your concerns on providing life support so a fetus can live, if that is so important.

BTW, I did not agree that you made a logical argument. My argument seems to debunk yours.

Of course you don't agree- you are too emotional to discuss this matter on purely logical terms. Most here are, but I am not. Regardless of who wins this discussion here (and I'm about done with it)... you should know that this is the argument that the supreme court will likely hear. Ask yourself if they will be interested in putting a 4 mos old fetus's priorities above those of a dying child who needs medical care, or above an adult. I doubt it. The only outcome will be the requirement that live birth is required whenever possible. Thats going to bother some people, I guess.