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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (3784)	1/28/2001 3:39:34 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Which leads directly to a second reason compelling to me. If these late term abortions continue, providing ammunition to the right, we will lose the fight to preserve a woman's right not to be forced to carry an embryo inside her body until it develops into a dependent human being. I can't disagree with a thing you said. (What a surprise!) But, of course, I always have something more to say. Regarding your second reason, political strategy, what would you expect in return for a concession on late term abortions? A counter-concession that early abortions are OK? Or added impetus to ban all abortions? That's a straight question. I've never tried to answer it because I draw the legal line at birth from a primarily libertarian perspective as opposed to your when-does-a-fetus-become-an-infant perspective. Regarding your first reason, I still don't hear an alternative. My frame of reference is the established default for legal, not necessarily moral, purposes, which is birth. If we're going to change the law, the change needs to be implementable without making a bigger mess than what we're trying to fix. If you were in charge of writing the new law, what would it say? Who would be in charge of implementing it? What other laws and customs would be affected? (How would this affect the inheritance laws you mentioned, for example?) We're talking about amending the Constitution here, probably. That's a pretty awesome undertaking. It deserves to be well thought through. I understand your problem with the status quo. But I still don't know what you want to do instead. Karen

To: E who wrote (3784)	1/28/2001 4:40:29 PM
From: BlueCrab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Karen, E, it's been a while since I posted at SI, and a longer while since I felt I had anything useful to add to a discussion. We all have our off-months, but here goes: Late-term abortions are very often the result of a mother/family finding significant problems with the fetus that will result in zero "quality-of-life" for the human-to-be and huge and fruitless medical bills for the parent(s) or the state. When Roe v. Wade occurred, technology didn't allow the knowledge of fetal health that is often (but not always) available now. I have two kids with a disorder called PKU; they are fine, wonderful kids but one of them is a teen who could bear children. Were her levels not under control FROM INCEPTION, her fetus could have severe developmental abnormalities that would not show up until the sixth or seventh month - microcephalia, anencephalia, etc. Would she, under the wrong circumstances, wish to bear that child? Would I want her to do so?