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


To: Bill who wrote (65462)1/31/2000 2:03:00 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 67261
 
Yep, and that would be a huge improvement, and a place to start the argument. It is incredible that we are still fighting over partial- birth abortion.....



To: Bill who wrote (65462)1/31/2000 2:27:00 PM
From: DMaA  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
I wonder what fraction of the population would agree with the proposition that abortion is such a public good that it should be subsidized?



To: Bill who wrote (65462)2/1/2000 12:40:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 67261
 
Of course the problem enters when folk attempt to define the words "absolutely necessary." Some say they refer to circumstances where pregnant women are poor and scared. Others say they refer to circumstances where pregnant women simply want to abort their children. Still others claim they refer to circumstances where women get pregnant from rape and/or incest, and yet others claim they refer to circumstances where pregnant women's lives are threatened. Of course here the word "threatened" then must then be defined, as some claim a woman's life is threatened merely when she suffers the stress of an "unwanted" pregnancy.

I say let the folk kill their children however they please, even after they are born (I cannot see how we have a moral obligation to stop them here and yet have none when they kill their children only seconds away from birth), but they must do it at their own expense.