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 (14973)	11/22/2006 2:18:33 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

I believe viability is important because, up to the that point, the fetus is totally dependent on the mother. 1 - I'm not sure why totally dependent is such an important criteria. 2 - After that point the fetus is totally dependent as well. Normally it is still inside the mother (and thus totally dependent), but even after its born it is totally dependent (even if it can be dependent on someone else besides the mother). If we don't accept that the mother has a choice up to that point, we'd need to consider restrictions on things in addition to abortion. Medical experts believe women shouldn't abuse drugs, drink, or smoke. There is a balance to consider. If both the mother and the child has rights, its one thing to say that the mother can't kill the child, quite another to say the mother has to make every decision with the welfare of the child ahead of her own desires. Its one thing to make a moral decision to put the welfare of the child first (and even then few would say it is totally ahead of the mother's wishes or welfare in any possible situation, even if they do give it a great deal of weight), its quite another to enforce that moral decision as a legal obligation. Taking that step goes far beyond restricting or even outlawing abortion.