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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (76571)	10/6/2003 12:30:48 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I definitely think this is more a political than a legal prosecution. As to "the state's interest in protecting a viable fetus from the reckless disregard of the woman carrying it," that's a fascinating issue that is worth exploring. Let me offer some questions. Should it be a prosecutable offense for reckless disregard of the health of the fetus (ignoring that some of the things I ask about, such as speeding, are illegal in their own right) for a pregnant woman to: -- drive significatly faster than the speed limit? -- talk on a cell phone while driving? -- go white water rafting? -- go sky diving? -- take on a very high-stress assignment at work? -- skip recommended visits with her ob-gyn? -- get her hair colored and permed? (there is some evidence that the chemicals in these products can be harmful to a fetus) -- eat fish that are traditionally at risk of higher than average levels of mercury? -- live in house with lead paint on the walls? -- live in a house with asbestos insulation? You see where this is all leading. All of those activities are potentially harmful to a fetus. Where do we draw the line between those that a woman can be allowed to do and those she can be prosecuted for doing?