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: epicure who wrote (83503)	7/6/2000 5:00:59 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Yes, you and Cobalt are wrong again. I don't even have to accuse you of being a liar. But the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which opposes restrictions on abortion, says it can identify "no circumstances under which" partial-birth abortion "would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman." And the American Medical Association says "there does not appear to be any identified situation in which" partial-birth abortion "is the only appropriate procedure to induce abortion." search.washingtonpost.com Remember, the proponents said that partial birth abortion was necessary to have as a procedure. The medical authorities agree that it is not.

To: epicure who wrote (83503)	7/6/2000 5:30:03 PM
From: Daniel Schuh	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Er, not that I care to engage the abortion warriors anymore, but on this particular issue, I happen to have an old link of interest, nytimes.com , notable mainly for this dissenting opinion in a related case that just happens to line up with the way the recent abortion decision went in the Supreme Court. Writing an impassioned opinion for the minority, Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner observed: "To understand this issue requires understanding the peculiar and questionable character of these statutes. They do not protect the lives of fetuses either directly or by seeking to persuade a woman to reconsider her decision to seek an abortion. For the statutes do not forbid the destruction of any class of fetuses, but merely criminalize a method of abortion -- they thus have less to recommend them than the antiabortion statutes invalidated in Roe vs. Wade," He continued: "There is no meaningful difference between the forbidden and the privileged practice. No reason of policy or morality that would allow the one would forbid the other. We should consider therefore why any state would pass such a law. An important part of the answer is found in Judge Manion's opinion in Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin vs. Doyle," "the states want to dramatize the ugliness of abortion." Of course, Posner is a well known flaming liberal (cough). Sadly, I imagine a hack like Manion would have a much better chance of getting nominated to the Supreme Court than Posner, if the election goes that way, but that's life. Cheers, Dan.