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 : Al Gore vs George Bush: the moderate's perspective -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: epicure who wrote (1486)	10/7/2000 1:14:59 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10042

Yup I did. I have a book on it. ROFL 1800's was when it became a "cause". Actually, I think it became a "cause" when the original precedent under English Common Law declared it a felony punishable by hanging in the 1200's. What "book" do you have, "The Idiot's Guide to Coloial Times"?... <VBG> However, putting the entire matter into context, the fact of the matter is that women who became pregnant found themselves getting married in hasty ceremonies and their children being born 6 months later.. A lot of that went on in colonial days, as well as the unprotected pre-marital sex that created the situation. But abortion was the dirty little secret that existed, but was considered both illegal and immoral, being performed by "specialists" with tools that often resulted in the death of the mother from infection. And to this day, it is still considered by the majority of Americans, including supposedly, Bill Clinton and Al Gore, both of whom "claim they desire" to reduce the incidence of abortion as much as possible. I'm not advocating the elimination of abortion in the 1st trimester, and that upholds the ruling in Roe v. Wade. However, the state DOES HAVE a vested interest in preserving both the health of the mother, and the unborn during the 2nd and 3rd trimesters, and that interest/authority IS ALSO upheld under Roe v. Wade.. I'm against the pro-abortionists usurping the state's, representing society, to limit abortion after the 1st term, except of course, where the mother's life is truly in danger. Effectively, Roe v. Wade codefied the English common law precedent with regard to the status of the unborn fetus after the period of "quickening" and providing the state the ability to limit, OR criminalize, 2nd and 3rd term abortions. There is now contradiction there... it is just that the pro-abortion faction want the entire 9 month period and denying the state the ability to limit any abortion prior to birth. Give them an inch and they want a mile. Regards, Ron