[geeks] Socialized medicine [was Re: nVidia 8800GT for Apple Mac Pro]

[Sridhar Ayengar]

Lionel Peterson wrote:
>>>> I consider abortion to be immoral.  I consider divorce to be 
>>>> immoral. I wouldn't even attempt to make either illegal.
>>> Do you consider murder and rape to be immoral?
>> Yes.
>> 
>>> If so, should murder and rape be illegal?
>> Yes, but not because its immoral.
> 
> Why beacuse it's bad business? Messy? Noisy?

Nope.  Because you don't have the right to take something (including
their life) from someone else by force.  My rights end at your nose.

>>> Abortion, according to Roman Catholic doctrine, is a form of 
>>> murder.
>> I don't have a problem with making it illegal to kill a fetus, 
>> provided that the law makes it possible for the woman to not carry
>>  the child to term herself.
> 
> WTF are you on about?
> 
> No offense, but are you saying that abortion should be legal until we
>  have fetuses that are a transportable from one "baby carrier" to 
> another? AFAIK, this technology doesn't exists, and I quite honestly
>  don't see how if we had this amazing new technology it would take 
> something that was OK and make it illegal... It's OK to abort a fetus
>  if it imposes too much hardship on the mother? That is a poor 
> justification in my humble opinion - akin to it's OK to steal if your
>  *really* hungry and there is no one willing to feed you, as soon as
>  someone offers you food, then it is then wrong to steal?

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
a fetus.

>> 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.
> 
> 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 
> asked...

By the time the nine months is over, the mother's rights have already
been trampled by the baby taking from her.  Too late.

> 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.

Peace...  Sridhar