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: epicure who wrote (4253)	2/1/2001 10:32:00 AM
From: Bald Eagle	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

RE: do not think convenience is a global enough term for why women end pregnancies. I didn't argue that it was the only reason. RE; I would say necessity is better. I do not want a woman forced to throw her education away, drop out of highschool and probably doom herself (and her child) to a life in the lower middle or lower class because of an unintended pregnancy- It is not a necessity to be a member of a class above lower middle. Necessities for life are food, water, air, clothing(in some climates) and shelter. It is much more convenient to get an education and hopefully a higher standard of living if you don't have a baby or babies to take care of, but people in this country generally have little problem in getting the REAL necessities of life. RE:but it seems to me, from a utilitarian perspective, to be to the detriment of society to force women to make the choice to keep unintended pregnancies or to have these children and give them up. I thought the discussion was about reasons that women have pregnancies, not whether there should be legislation against it or not..