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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Kevin Rose who wrote (14906)	11/20/2006 5:56:18 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

In vitro fertilization doesn't inherently require creating numerous embryos and then eliminating all of those that are not selected and implanted. As for abortion in response to rape - Well that complicates the issue a bit. The standard pro-life argument is that the fetus has a right to life, the standard opposing viewpoint is that the fetus has no rights. An alternate pro-choice argument is that even if the fetus has rights the pregnant woman does as well, and she shouldn't be required to be attached to and support another human life. (see Judith Jarvis Thomson's analogy to having a famous violinist surgically attached to you so he can use your kidneys and not die) A counter argument to that idea is that by engaging in sex the woman assumed the moral responsibility for the other life. However in cases of rape (and in Thompson's violist analogy) the woman doesn't have sex voluntarily. Would the discarding of unused embryos be murder? Can you give me a rigid definition of murder? Murder is often defined as the illegal killing of a human being. Certainly discarding the embryos wouldn't be illegal. Whether or not its considered murder I would have a moral objection to it.