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 (2185)	10/11/2000 9:39:47 PM
From: Hawkmoon	Respond to of 10042

Guns yes. Contraceptives no. Perhaps the two issues could be combined? Who the h*ll said anything about denying women (OR MEN) access to contraceptives??!!! Unless, that is, you consider abortion a contraceptive....

To: epicure who wrote (2185)	10/11/2000 9:55:29 PM
From: long-gone	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

<<But according to our Supreme Court a woman has a right of privacy over her body- if she is denied care because she is too poor to go to another location to obtain the health care she needs than her Constitutional rights are imperiled. >> I agree! Where I can't agree is the government providing these services - the same position taken by Dick Cheney - the vote liberals are calling "anti-choice". Should not the line be better drawn(as was drawn by Mr. Cheney) between being against big government & against choice? Is not the truth always better?

To: epicure who wrote (2185)	10/13/2000 8:11:28 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10042

"Refuseing to provide certain services is not tyrannical or oppressive." But according to our Supreme Court a woman has a right of privacy over her body- if she is denied care because she is too poor to go to another location to obtain the health care she needs than her Constitutional rights are imperiled. Since you are so concerned about rights I felt SURE you would understand about a woman's right to safeguard her health and reproductive freedom. Apparently not. As far as constituional rights are concerned the supreme court is wrong. The constituion says nothing about abortion or even directly about privacy for that matter. As far as natural rights are concerned a woman does have a right to try to protect her health. But regarding abortion - This right does not extend to a right to kill others. As far as Christian run hospitals that will not distribute contraceptives - That is there perogative. I would say a woman does have the natural right to take contraceptives (not a consitituional right as the constitution does not mention them, but the federal government has no constituional power to make them illegal), but having a right to buy and use contraceptives does not give you a right to demand that others sell or give them to you. Your constituional rights are not infringed or imperelled if you are too poor to exercise them. I have a right to keep and bear arms but no one would be violateing my 2nd amendment rights if they refused to give me a gun and I was too poor to buy one. Tim