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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Solon who wrote (20477)	6/17/2005 2:45:40 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

You kind of lost me there at the end but it appears your position is, like unto TP, you do not consider it a person until leaving the womb of mother and having had the cord cut, is that right? I doubt that it is possible to ever get a universal agreement on the point at which personhood is achieved. We still don't even have an agreement on what a person is, for crying out loud. However, it is good that we can clarify where you draw your line.

To: Solon who wrote (20477)	6/17/2005 3:23:20 PM
From: Oeconomicus	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I generally agree with most of what you've said, though I don't quite get the last line about "high priestesses". Nevertheless, where I might take issue is with the idea that the rights of the fetus (or unborn child as some might prefer it said) are moot simply because the fetus can't express choices. Many living people, long ago born, become unable to communicate the "choices [they] might have made" or even to make choices at all in their own interest. In these cases, either a relative or guardian can have legal authority to make choices on their behalf and, absent such a person, the state would hold such authority. In either case, the one with such authority is legally and ethically obligated to make the choices that they reasonably believe to be in the interests of, or in accordance with the wishes of, the incapacitated person. In addition, children are generally deemed (legally) to be incapable or unqualified to make most any choice that might materially affect their life or well-being. Parents, then, generally have the authority to make choices on their behalf. But in any of these circumstances, should a court of competent jurisdiction decide that the parent or legal guardian (or whatever the present authority may be called) is not acting in the best interest of the child or incapacitated person, then the court can take away their authority and assign it to another interested party, including the state. Obviously, we are getting back away from my question about the dead mother-to-be (which you answered very well, BTW), but you climbed out onto a weak limb with the "no capacity to choose, therefore rights are moot" argument and I think we are back to the questions of when, not whether, the fetus has rights and, as importantly, whose rights take precedence (people often forget the second part). On another note, the implication that the mother-to-be should be free to take dangerous drugs, get repeatedly plastered or do whatever else she pleases, either in spite of the danger to the fetus or specifically in an attempt to induce a miscarriage, is also problematic. For one thing, people can be institutionalized against their will if they are deemed to be a danger to themselves or to others. One or both might apply here, depending on the law's view of the fetus as an "other" with rights. And if the fetus is legally a person, then should would also be chargeable for reckless endangerment, at least. For another, if she IS attempting to induce a miscarriage, then she is either attempting an illegal abortion (without a license, at the least) or she is attempting murder (depending, of course, on whether the fetus is deemed a person). Either way, her actions are, or should be, illegal. There was actually a case like this recently, though the prosecutors inexplicably pressed charges against the boyfriend who helped her induce the miscarriage (murder, I believe), but not against the woman. I don't see the logic in that, myself. Anyway, thanks for your thoughtful response.