"As a civil libertarian, one has to also have some place in there for the rights of the unborn. That is the one individual that is not provided any consent in the procedure."The difficulty with that is deciding at what point the 'unborn' becomes a person with rights. You are a person once you are born, in rare cases not long before birth. Beyond that, a blastocyst is not a person. With government issues, you have to come up with something clear and definable in the legal sense. The 'unborn' are not persons with rights (yet). To the state, they do not yes exist. Rightly so, in my opinion. "Everyone else involved has some choice or the ability to make a choice at some point."The people involved make the choice. A blastocyst or fetus cannot make a decision. To assign 'personhood' to a fetus is simply silly, and makes no sense at all."This reminds me of the states that attempt to ban assisted suicide. By what right does a government have to get between a patient and their doctor?"In this case you are talking about a person - clearly a legal entity that the state can recognize and grants rights to. These are very difficult questions. The only one I am quite sure of is that the government should NOT be making these decisions. As MV stated, "Abortion is a private matter between a woman, her doctor, and her partner (in that order)." I would add that no where in there is there a place for government, nor is there a place for someone else's religious views. This is a personal decision, and is rightly left to the persons involved.We all know that we can do what is 'right' - as far as our personal views of ethics and morals. Where we cross the line is where we think we should force everyone else to live according to ours.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra