The Boxing Ring Revived Message Board

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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: Lane3 who wrote (3508)	12/28/2002 4:49:41 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) of 7720

If you consider a fetus or an embryo a person and can persuade yourself that the Constitution thinks so, too Its not necessary for the constitution to think so. Its only necessary that it doesn't explicitly state otherwise. If you think it can, you are either extremely sentimental about the matter or you have more confidence in government than I do. I'm not so sure it would do a great job but an imperfect job would be better then no protection at all IMO. We could end up with a law that says we must continue life support for a fetus when we would not do so for a baby. What a mess that would be. Even in a country that would support the right to life cause or in a country that would support the idea that its a matter for the states because the constitution says nothing about it (and then of course within that framework in a state that supports the pro life cause), it would be unlikely that we would get something like that. Any unusual life support would probably happen after the child is born, in which case the law would be the same as it would be for any other baby. Tim

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next