Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (58910)	8/19/1999 4:43:00 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>>It gets really sticky when one person wants the baby and the other does not, which is I think where your questions lie... I beileve the position of the courts on this has been that the individual that wants the baby takes precedent, which I guess is the only way. << I'm sorry but that is not true. There have been court cases where the mother did not want the child but the father did, the court ruled it was the woman's right to abort. It always comes down to this, if the woman wants the child the father is forced to support it, irrespective of whether or not he chose the pregnancy. If she wishes to abort against the fathers wishes she has the "right". If you are going to make the argument that a woman should not have to be "forced" to carry to term a child because it is unwanted, then it should follow that a man should be able to either "force" an abortion or the very least, refuse to support "the product of conception"<g> if the pregnancy was unwanted by him. It is by far a much greater life altering experience to be put in the position of a lifetime of child support than it is to carry a child for 9 months. I certainly don't hear you supporting his right to choose...... so much for equality under the law. bp