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: Rambi who wrote (76106)	3/24/2000 5:37:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

I think some of them do NOT allow for abortion even in rape or incest- because the fetus didn't cause the crime. That fetus isn't any more guilty than any other fetus. And crime isn't hereditary as was once thought- of course there ARE diseases of the mind that may incline one toward crime, bu so many of those are treatable now- there is no justification to set aside rape as a special case- except perhaps if you want to argue that volition of the mother is key- and that consensual sex is important in the decision to force a woman to carry a pregnancy. But then what do you do about women incapacitated by alcohol and drugs- who could not form volitional intent? Do you say that you need to force them to because they shouldn't have put themselves in that position? What about a contraceptive device that fails? Where the woman did everything she could - but the condom broke? Do we force her? Did she assume the risk? It does start to sound like the criminal search for motive, doesn't it? I am happy to be here- but am not about to force anyone to have children because of that. Nor, if I had to, would I have chosen to force my mother to carry me. I could never force a woman to do that. I know what it entails. It's an individual decision best left to the individual.