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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Elroy who wrote (229783)	4/18/2005 6:04:18 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573714

Elroy, We're not talking about killing a babym, we're talking about aborting an unborn fetus. Like I said before, no expectant mother ever refers to her unborn child as a "fetus." A fetus is not an individual with all the legal rights that individuals have in our society. So it's legal; therefore, it's moral. Tenchusatsu P.S. - Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide. That in itself should tell you how ambiguous the law is with regard to the rights of the unborn.

To: Elroy who wrote (229783)	4/18/2005 9:17:09 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573714

A fetus is not an individual with all the legal rights that individuals have in our society. Yes obviously a fetus has little or no legal rights in our current regime. What I fail to understand is how you consider stating the current law to be an answer to the question of what the law should be. Slaves had only reduced legal rights before the 13th amendment in the US. Some groups in some societies have effectively had no legal rights. Does the mere fact that the law did not protect them mean it is ok for the law to not protect them? Tim