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: Greg or e who wrote (5882)	2/15/2001 11:27:30 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Thanks. It's an argument I have heard, but that puts it well. But IMO the argument fails on several counts. First, except in the case of rape, pregnancy is the result of an intentional act on the part of the woman. Second, except in cases where there is a medical problem which would justify abortion, there is no negative long-term health impact on the life of the mother (and indeed some studies show that women are healthier for having given birth). A better example would be whether the state could require a person to give blood if that blood were necessary to save the life of another person. In fact, in the U.S. military, this IS the law, and I think an argument to adopt it as a national law might be justifiable, in line with the Good Samaritan laws in some states. But again, there is no long-term effect or impact on the person as there is with the loss of a kidney. I think it is a good try, but no cigar.