[geeks] Socialized medicine [was Re: nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro]
lionel4287 at verizon.net
Tue Jun 3 08:45:04 CDT 2008
>From: Sridhar Ayengar <ploopster at gmail.com>
>Date: 2008/06/02 Mon PM 11:12:33 EDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Socialized medicine [was Re: nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro]
>Lionel Peterson wrote:
>No, it isn't ok to steal if you're hungry and you can't afford food.
>(At least in a legal sense, it's a bit cloudier morally.)
>The difference is that, even if you're really hungry, you're *choosing*
>to steal. The fetus isn't choosing to trample the rights of the mother.
>But it is anyway. It's in the nature of the fetus, which is wholly
>dependent on the mother. Making it possible for a fetus to grow without
>the involvement of the unwilling mother removes that from the nature of
How rude of that fetus to develop inside a woman who did nothing to cause that fetus to develop... I wish there was some way to avoid unwanted pregnancy - we should get our top scientists on this right away...
>>> The Roman Catholic argument is that the rights of the mother cannot
>>> be paramount to the rights of the child. I don't have a problem
>>> with that argument, however I would add that the rights of the
>>> child also cannot be paramount to the rights of the mother.
You've made them equal (if neither can trample the other, they are equal, leaving you penalizing the fetus for it's inability assert it's position in a timely manner)...
>> Fine, wait nine months and then ask the baby if it's OK with being
>> terminated - you are punishing the fetus for not yet having the
>> powers of cognition and communication. The woman's rights trump the
>> baby's because she can hit the "buzzer" first when the question is
>By the time the nine months is over, the mother's rights have already
>been trampled by the baby taking from her. Too late.
Pity, but she started it (if not for "mom's" actions, the fetus wouldn't have been created, leaving "mom's" rights untrampled)...
>> I am not a fan of that logic...
>Well let's not forget in this discussion that I consider abortion
>immoral, and I value the concept of "death before dishonor". I don't
>currently have any children, but I sure would like some. And when I do,
>I will *choose* to put the rights of my children before my own. I
>consider that to be the only responsible moral choice. And I would
>*die* before I made the other choice. However, I don't want the
>*choice* to be taken away from me.
I assume we both agree that abortions are *way* too common, and adoption is an under-exercised option...
Also, as I understand it, *you* have no choice - it isn't your body, so it isn't *your* choice. You can provide an Amicus Curaie Brief, but *you* can't trample the rights of the victim of your actions...
More information about the geeks