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.

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

To: lorrie coey who wrote (75971)	3/24/2000 8:15:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Misogyny=disagreement with cooeyism JLA

To: lorrie coey who wrote (75971)	3/24/2000 10:45:00 AM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 108807

Lorrie! You go girl. This was so beautifully on target I had to back you up-- after I finished laughing at the rerun on the breast-feeding issue, which now seems to have deteriorated into some strange exchange on how anyone who doesn't agree with certain personal ideas of proper behavior is somehow inconsiderate. The discrepancy between believing it's perfectly acceptable, yea, even morally righteous, to insist on the rights of a fetus to be brought to term regardless of the mother's desire, and yet become outraged over the feeding of this same infant where they might have to (oh no!) be exposed to it-- well, it leaves me amazed. I just love this extended discussion of consideration for others when a little kindness and generosity toward a new mother with a screaming baby and leaking breasts would be the most considerate gesture of all.

To: lorrie coey who wrote (75971)	3/24/2000 10:53:00 AM
From: Edwarda	Respond to of 108807

You are quite correct, lorrie: I do not care what you believe because your polemics against people who happen to be male make it difficult to take anything you say seriously. I will say that as a feminist and as a libertarian I oppose abortion because I am politically and morally uneasy with definitions of persons under the law that exclude the unborn. As a woman who has been raped, I understand all too vividly the horror of the thought of such an wanted pregnancy. (Why should we sugar-coat the issue? Let's make it a situation from which everyone recoils.) However, the vast majority of women know, as I did, to get a month's prescription for birth control pills and take three the first day, two the following, and then finish out the month with one per day. So let's not talk about being "forced" to bear children. In situations where preventive measures cannot be or are not taken, what has the unborn person done except have the nerve to exist? When we think of women's rights' extending to abortion, we are not talking about an unattractive wen that is being removed. We are defining the existence and rights of a person under law.