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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Peter O'Brien who wrote (15895)	11/24/1998 9:16:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>No, a continuation of the original assault meaning the assault against the fetus (due to an abortion). In other words, the rapist is morally responsible for both the assault against the woman and the resulting assault against the fetus if an abortion is chosen. All I'm trying to say is that there is a philisophical argument to be made, even among "pro-lifers", to support the right to choose an abortion as a result of rape.< Ah yes. I see. Yes. On the basis of the rape, a claim can POSSIBLY be made against the life of the unborn child. It can perhaps be argued that the moral responsibility for the life of the child rests upon the rapist. So then parity is reached by assigning the murder on the rapist and not by declaring the murder not a murder. This is perhaps acceptable, but it has its problems. >The victim of the rape could, of course, choose to be a "good Samaritan" and have the child. But should the government force someone to be a "good Samaritan" to save someone else's life (especially if they have absolutely no responsibility for causing the situation)?< The problem is made manifest when we consider that the life of the child tends toward development regardless of the rapist or mother. In the case of a born human whose life is in danger, perhaps the government has no moral recourse to force someone to be his "Good Samaritan". But the difference between his circumstance and that of an unborn child is that the child is in no danger. His life will tend to develop in correlation with that of the mother. For the mother to allow it to die, as one might allow the human who is in danger to die, she would have to do nothing. Doing nothing in her case would endanger her own life. She cannot typically allow the child to die. Someone has to take decisive action to kill the child. That someone will not necessarily be the rapist. Principle tells me the mother has not the right to kill the child, but I think I could by principle assign blame for the murder on the rapist. In our current system, the baby's death is not even considered a murder, and I think there is no principle here at all.