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: blue red who wrote (561666)	4/8/2004 10:55:09 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769667

All human lives start at conception, You can motor on and on and simply demonstrate your ignorance of biology. You can fabricate scenarios but once a human life begins it continues for seconds, hours or decades and all times in between. And that human life dies a natural death or is killed by accident or with intent. Abortion is ending a human life with intent.

To: blue red who wrote (561666)	4/8/2004 3:34:36 PM
From: Poet	Respond to of 769667

This is compelling post about the abortion conundrum, blue red. I've not known about this medical anomaly, fetus in feti. What a horrific thing. One would think that this is a clear case for "abortion" of the parasitic fetus. And yet I see Watson's answer doesn't address your question: My question for them is, what about the first 8 years of the boy's life? When he wasn't dying from having his blood sucked by the fetus in feti? He just had a huge stomach and was somewhat weak, supplying the blood for two and all. I'm not sure he-- or any of the antichoice zealots here-- have considered the subject from this vantage point. It certainly makes their zealotry problematic. To say the least.

To: blue red who wrote (561666)	4/8/2004 4:16:09 PM
From: Neenny	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

blue red, Let's take the same scenario and let's say that when the feti needed to be removed from the 8 year old boy, doctors were prepared to save the life of the fetus. They had all life saving equipment available to use, the instant this fetus was "delivered" If the doctors made every attempt to save the life of this fetus, would they be successful? If the fetus was brainless and headless, no matter what attempts to deliver a living child from this scenario would be impossible. Is attempting to deliver this child an abortion? I don't think so. In my opinion it would no different than a woman carrying to term a malformed child that did not have the organs capable of sustaining life after birth. It would not matter what was done to "save" the life of this fetus it would have been unsuccessful. So by who's opinion was this an abortion or the delivering of a child. Just think what the successful deliver of this child would have meant to the scientific world. Would it have been considered that a male gave birth to a child? There is another name for this condition, and it is not as uncommon as one might first think. Normally though the "twin" does not continue to develop. I will find more information on this subject later and post it here. I don't expect that you will agree with anything that I have written as it will not fit into what you had hoped to accomplish by posting this question.

To: blue red who wrote (561666)	4/9/2004 12:40:28 AM
From: Neenny	Respond to of 769667

Being that I did not see the program you mentioned, I am not sure that the information I am going to post is the same type of thing. The following type cyst contain human DNA. I am aware of these as my sister had one. One explanation the doctor gave her, before it was removed, was that it is a possibility that she was a twin. The type of cyst is call a Dermoid cyst. They can contain, blood, hair, teeth, bone, finger nails....ect. emedicine.com kumc.edu kumc.edu

To: blue red who wrote (561666)	4/9/2004 3:37:24 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769667

Firstly, let us just assume abortion is morally permissible in this instance, since the circumstances are so remarkably atypical of the human developmental experience. It still would not permit abortion in 99.99% of the cases where it occurs because this circumstance appeals only to abortion in highly abnormal circumstances. It obviously does not help the pro-choice position for abortion on demand. Moreover, you actually support the pro-life primary position when you submit this circumstance as a supposed conundrum. You see, the implicit argument here is that if the so-called fetus “in feti” is a human, then we are forced to let it live though it is unborn. So then, since we all accept here that if a thing is a human being, then it must not be murdered even if is unborn. And we know that human beings first appear in nature with us at conception. Lastly, there is in fact not the slightest conundrum here. The so-called fetus “in feti” is not self-expressing along the essential trajectory in which interbreeding humanity self-expresses. It ultimately has no fully human identity, but is a mere defect-- a former human that has naturally aborted our trajectory, whose remnant tissue now grows as does a tumor. We need not even work to try and “save” the “fetus” because the moral implications for removing it are no different than they are in the case of removing defective skin cells. Though this “fetus” may contain DNA, it does not contain the self-replicating structure that makes it fully human and that is responsible for pushing it along our unique form of self-expression. It is just a mass of cells, growing toward no uniquely human end. Indeed, in this case it is clearly growing toward an anti-human end because it threatens the life of a self-expressing and actualizing human (which fact alone makes it morally permissible to try and detach it from the human, since were nothing done, BOTH organisms would die). To see this more clearly, answer the following question: which of the human expressions listed below will this so-called “fetus” produce were it allowed to continue attached to its host indefinitely? 1. eyes 2. a mouth 3. a head 4. a brain 5. brain-waves The answer is, of course, none and the reason the answer is “none” is because, though the tissue has human DNA, it does not have the replicating structure that properly exploits the DNA toward these human expressions. This is not to say all humans must have eyes. It is instead to say that not having eyes is a human defect. Not having a mouth is a human defect. Not having a brain or brain-waves are human defects. It is to underscore that in the case of this so-called “fetus,” the entire status is one of “defect,” an organism that has none of the attributes that marks it as a being proceeding along our human developmental trajectory. Unlike the typical human who joins us at conception and remains there at least until it leaves the womb, this organism has left our identity in utero and cannot possibly return. We may therefore remove the naturally aborted human as we remove skin cells, tumors or other defective growths from our bodies. These growths may have DNA in them, but DNA does not of itself express humanly. It is mere human logic—code that is built of amino acids.