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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: ChinuSFO who wrote (73763)	2/25/2006 3:29:16 PM
From: Orcastraiter	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 81568

Let me correct you. It's a fetus. As for whose rights are more important, that is a very complex question indeed. The rights of the fetus, or the right of the mother. Somehow they need to be balanced. Roe v Wade tried to balance these rights. Clearly no one advocates murder. No one advocates abortion. The question is, when does life begin? At conception? In the second trimester? In the ovaries and testes? Where do we as a society need to draw the line? At viability outside the mother? At viability in a petrie dish? At the potential for life in the ovaries? Every human being will have a different perspective on this one. Legislation needs to balance the rights of all parties. If all abortions are made illegal, abortions will continue, especially for the wealthy. The legislative solution is a slippery slope indeed. I think that most people think that it should be up to the the individuals involved, so long as it's not after the first trimester and so long as the life of the mother is not at risk. It's a complex decision that needs to be discussed between the individuals involved, their doctors, their clergy and their trusted associates. I believe that as a society and as a government that we need to help draw the line for all people. I believe that the line drawn by Roe v Wade respects the rights of all involved and leaves the final decision up to the individuals. Some say that life begins at conception. Some say life begins at viability outside the womb. Under the current law all voices are respected and no one is forced to do something against their own will. Even god granted humans free will. Should the government restrict free will? As a society we will be better served by funding alternatives to abortion. By education. By assisting people in making tough decisions. There is no bottom line on this issue, only gray areas. The main issue is to decide the role of government in peoples lives. To me that should be minimized. If as a government and a society are to decide that life begins at the moment of conception, then all post conception birth control would be illegal. If this is murder, then certainly too is the prosecution of pre-emptive war that kills and maims 100,000's of innocent people. If life is to be protected at all costs, then let the new law also prevent pre-emptive war. Orca