Subject:
|
Re: Danish cartoons outrage some Moslem groups and nations
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 10 Feb 2006 18:46:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1807 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, John Neal wrote:
| |
The issue boiled down is the status of the
fetus/embryo/child/tissue/baby/growth. I find it telling which terms are
used, for they betray the positions of each side. That is where the basis
of agreement needs to begin.
|
And, naturally, that may be the hardest agreement to reach!
| |
| |
“Viability” refers to pure, physiological criteria and shouldn’t be mistaken
for “independent.” A healthy newborn is viable but is not independent.
Heck, I know some healthy 20-somethings who are viable but not independent.
|
:-)
If a baby has been delivered at 20 weeks and has survived (albeit through
extraordinary measures), would you consider that a criteria for viability
Dave!?
|
A fair question.
If a fetus is removed from its mother at 20 weeks and spends another 20 weeks in
an artificial uterus until birth, then that’s just substituting one womb for
another, and it doesn’t change the underlying issue of viability.
WARNING: NOW ENTERING A GRAY AREA
Of course, then we must ask “what about premature-born babies who are kept in
incubators for several weeks?’ Well, I don’t know. Honestly, I can’t say that
the mother has the right to kill a premature-born baby while it’s in the
incubator.
Legalistically, I suppose a distinction might be made between a non-viable fetus
in utero versus a non-viable baby ex utero, when the latter is maintained
through artificial means. The rights of the former could still be argued to be
subordinate to the mother, since it’s physiologically dependent upon her. But I
still don’t have a great answer.
NOW LEAVING GRAY AREA (yeah, right)
| |
| |
| |
2. A woman, who is 6 months pregnant, is on her way to the abortion clinic
to get a legal abortion. Before she gets there, she is mugged and
assaulted by a Right Wing Ant-abortion Protestor. She ends up in the
hospital, her fetus mortally wounded. The Whackjob is charged and
convicted of manslaughter. How can it be that he can get convicted of doing
something that she would have legally paid to do minutes later? Is this
clearly not an “equal protection” issue?
|
It’s manslaughter because the Whackjob took the decision away from the
woman, who could otherwise have changed her mind at the last minute. • ?
|
But there’s no law prohibiting “taking someone’s decision away” on the books
AFAIK. The crime is the result. I am very uncomfortable with this
completely arbitrary characterization of life, especially in the late second
and third semesters.
|
Well, consider another (admittedly flawed) example. For the sake of the
hypothetical, imagine that suicide is legally protected like abortion:
If a person decides to commit suicide, and on the way to the Noose Store is
killed by a mugger, the mugger is still guilty of murder, even though the victim
had already resolved to buy and use the noose.
Dave!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
109 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
