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: Lane3 who wrote (4101)	1/30/2001 9:41:50 PM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Benevolent Despot???? I thought I was up for the Malevolent Despot nomination.....shoot, I had better go back and fix some of those posts. You bring up an interesting point about civil servants (ir spouse) and military (or spouse) personnel. I agree that they should not be deprived of this choice and I am sure that there are some who would view this as the government paying for it. An interesting dilemma you have put me in.:-) Interestingly, I don't believe that abortions are covered on my plan except for health purposes. And I have a pretty comprehensive plan. I wonder if it is a normal offering. It doesn't really matter to me, if I was in that situation (or, more accurately, my wife), I would pay cash and never let it show up on some insurance company's paperwork. I do understand that this is not a luxury that is available to everyone. I agree with your "not perfect, but most fair" solution.

To: Lane3 who wrote (4101)	1/30/2001 11:12:53 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 82486

The other way is for the government to not pay for abortions, period. That's easier to manage administratively, but it's not benign. Why should a civil servant or military wife stationed in (pick a remote and conservative country) be forced to carry a fetus to term when her corporate counterpart gets flown to wherever she can get an abortion and her health insurance covers it? I don't know why the taxpayer who opposes abortion gets deference and the recipient gets the shaft. They're both citizens. It cuts both ways. Why should Bill Gates be able to (if he cared to) take out full page adds in every major paper every day to talk about his opinions while I am limited to posting it places like this or maybe writing a letter to the editor or to my congressman. We both have freedom of speech. Even if one assumes that a woman does have a right to have an abortion that does not mean that other people have an obligation to pay for it. Tim

To: Lane3 who wrote (4101)	1/31/2001 11:03:53 AM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

>>Plus the mechanics of implementing the exceptions would be a mess.<< Government shouldn't be in the business of using tax dollars to provide abortion services. Period. As you said. If you feel passionately about facilitating abortion, you can donate your money to abortion clinics that can provide "free" abortions to women who can't afford them. Just like the pro-life people do with respect to providing support for women who chose to allow their babies to be born.