SI
SI
discoversearch

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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63375)11/17/1999 8:56:00 PM
From: MSB  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I maintain my position that the pro-life argument assigns "super human" rights to the fetus at the expense of the mother, who is not required to provide life support anymore than a family member is required to provide bone marrow to a dying sibling.

Or that a father of a child should have to pay child support to a woman who chose to have a child in which the male in question is proven to be the biological sperm donor (via ten toes up and ten toes down).




To: Lizzie Tudor who wrote (63375)11/17/1999 9:29:00 PM
From: Tom Clarke  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
I think Roe stands because if it was turned back now there would be social upheaval. You pointed that out awhile back and I dismissed the idea when you said it. After thinking about it, I think you're right. Reagan had the best chance to roll it back and nothing was done when something could have been done. It's too ingrained now. These pols who promise to appoint judges who will roll back Roe are pandering. They know it will never happen.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News