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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (17319)	4/23/2000 3:38:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

A friend who worked at Planned Parenthood and knew I was prochoice called me up all excited when Roe v Wade passed. I was incredulous when Rosemary (I've talked on feelies about this 1973 conversation with Rosemary G.) told me how late in the pregnancy abortion was to be allowed. I said, "Rosemary, what are you saying? That is infanticide." I was incredulous. She was startled at my reaction, and said something about it having been designed that way to "grandfather" some women who had been forced to wait. I've never heard that referred to since, so don't know whether it was a real consideration or whether she was improvising in embarrassment at my shock. I do remember the end of the conversation, in which I said to her, "I can't believe what's happened. Nurses will be running out of the operating room crying. You think this is settled, but it's not, it's only the beginning." I was very upset. We never spoke again, but I'm sure she's thought of that conversation many times. I didn't consciously drop her or anything; I don't remember what happened. Maybe it all just felt too strange, or strained, after that talk. I've been in the minority ever since then, among people I know, in my position on late term abortion. But over time, sanity will prevail, I think. I call "sanity" a definition of "a person" that involves sentiency rather than either a "a-soul-enters-it-as-soon-as-sperm-meets-ovum" concept (this is America, we are not a theocratic dictatorship) or a purely ideological/mechanical inside-or-outside-the-uterus concept that ignores the patent attributes of the fetus. This approach also gives, on the one hand, some weight to the wishes of the woman in whose uterus the potential person is growing, and on the other hand, some weight to the (presumed) wishes of the now-sentient being that has developed its sentiency in her body. It feels "sane" to me to say to you, Neocon, who would insist a zygote or embryo or early fetus has more rights that the host (hostess? lol) woman "It is too early, Neocon, for the pregnancy to rule her," and then to say, to the woman in whose body a sentient being resides and who wants it removed, "It is too late, Mother, for you to rule, at the cost of this sentient being's life." There are, of course, those who approve early infanticide. It's a position. I figure they should argue that position frankly, if they want to, and not call some cases of infanticide by an evasive name. I think you should change your position on early abortion, Neocon. Actually, I have the impression you have expressed an acceptance of the morning-after pill. I would suggest you consider allowing a woman to decide what happens to her up until the time she has a sentient being in her body. It is the kindest position.