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 (14951)	11/22/2006 10:15:34 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

you've forgotten an important one: a viable life. The list isn't meant to be exhaustive. Adding "when there is a viable life" probably wouldn't complete it either. Someone else could pick some other point, maybe "when the organism can feel emotions", or "when the organism is physically separate" (which would of course be birth), or "when the organism is independent" (which is an argument that I've seen used for birth, but you could also pick any point up to adulthood, or even "never" as the answer for that question), or some other criteria. Personally viability isn't a major concern for me, in terms of the philosophical, moral, social, and potentially legal status of the organism. Viability depends on the state of medical technology and infrastructure. I don't see such changes as changing the basic moral/philosophical status of the fetus. It might be important in one way. Before viability, someone could argue that even if the fetus is a human life possessing of natural rights, that it doesn't have a right to occupy someone else's body if it isn't wanted (esp. in the case of rape when the woman willingly take a risk that resulted in the life being in such a dependent position), and then they could use that argument for an abortion. They could even perhaps have an intact abortion, and argue that they didn't kill the fetus, but that the fetus died (since it wasn't viable). A number of people, in some, perhaps many or all, situations draw a distinction between killing an letting something that is alive die without intervention. Arguments could be made about this specific situation, but I'm not sure that they are really important to our discussion. I don't think anyone here is actually making the argument that "intact extraction of a still living fetus, that dies because it isn't viable" is ok, while "killing before extraction is not". Unless someone makes such an argument I won't bother examining it in greater detail. After viability that argument would only support an induced birth or C-section, not the killing of the fetus, because the fetus can be removed without killing it. It is a difficult argument. OTOH it is one where society needs to make decisions. And deciding to stick with some previous decision (imposed by the Supreme Court in this case) is itself a decision. Deciding to let people do what they want when the situation involves them is also a decision (and one to which many people would reply also involves others, most importantly the fetus). I sometimes avoid discussion, when I think I have talked it out with a specific person and have nothing left, or when I think emotions and slogans and shouting, will take over from reasonable rational discussion. I've had both interesting conversation (notably with "Lane3") on this topic, and I've had people respond with personal attacks or or ignores. Fortunately so far this conversation has, been the former.