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 (14976)	11/22/2006 5:06:59 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

What I meant was that the child is totally dependent on the decisions of the mother. After the baby is born, the mother can give the baby up for adoption, and remove herself from that decision-making process. I don't see how that makes a difference or even really clarifies your point. You initial point was that viability was an important distinction, not birth. They aren't the same thing. And yes my counter argument dealt with physical dependence rather than "dependence on the decisions of", I don't see how anything I said about physical dependence doesn't apply to arguments based on "dependence on the decisions of". I did say "but even after its born it is totally dependent (even if it can be dependent on someone else besides the mother)." That's true whether you are talking about physical dependence or "decision dependence". She makes the choices as to the future of the fetus, until it is born as a human life. Its obviously a human life before it is born, although you could argue that it isn't a person. Removing that leaves "She makes the choices as to the future of the fetus, until it is born." Which is true. But she also often makes the decisions about its future after it is born. Even if she decides to give the child up for adoption, that's a decision about the child's life. Upon that separation, the child gains certain moral and legal rights that, almost by definition, require the child to be separate and not biologically dependent on the mother. I'm pretty sure I totally disagree with that argument, the only issue being I'm not even sure if I understand the argument. I'm not sure what "almost be definition" would really mean. If the definition of rights requires that the posessor of rights not be biologically dependent on another organism, then its simply "by definition". If it doesn't then "by definition" wouldn't seem to apply at all. I submit that it doesn't apply. Does a dependent conjoined twin not have a right to live? Assume the twin's dependence will not cause any severe risk to the other twin. (at least no more than the risk of normal child birth)