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 (5929)	2/15/2001 5:49:22 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

The abortion issue is the single most complex issue the US has faced since its inception, IMO. More complex than slavery? That one required compromises in the Constitution to get agreement on a government, required compromises to admit additional states to the union, was a significant factor in the bloodiest war in our nation's history, and to this day echos daily in numerous aspects of society. And the issue of the right role of the federal government in solving social problems and funding those solutions is highly complex, though not as much hot-button issue. Somehow I doubt that the abortion issue will still be having a major impact on the country in 2200. We will have found a way to solve it or get around it long before then. That said, I think it is clearly the most broadly emotionally laden issue we face, one of the most divisive, and as you say one of the most complex. But THE most complex? I don't think so. BTW, I think race will be back in the forefront even more than it is now within the next fifty years as our largest state becomes a white minority state.

To: Lane3 who wrote (5929)	2/15/2001 5:54:07 PM
From: long-gone	Respond to of 82486

Bush Fills Top Justice Positions NewsMax.com Thursday, February 15, 2001 President Bush has selected a noted black ex-prosecutor to run the daily Justice Department operations and a constitutional expert as the administration's lead courtroom lawyer. The new president's choice for deputy attorney general is Larry Thompson, who replaces Eric Holder Jr., also a black, who in many ways ran the department for Attorney General Janet Reno during the Clinton-Gore administration. Holder has been testifying before two congressional committees interested in the role he may have played in ex-President Bill Clinton's pardon of billionaire fugitive Marc Rich. Thompson will also oversee directly the Federal Bureau of Investigation. At 55, he is a partner in the premier Atlanta law firm of King & Spalding, which also numbers among its partners Griffin Bell, a former attorney general. The attorney Bush selected as solicitor general, to present his administration's cases before the Supreme Court, is Theodore Olson. In a sense, Bush owes his presidency to Olson, for it was he who argued successfully in the nation's highest tribunal Bush's suit against Vice President Al Gore that decided the 2000 presidential election. Olson is also the attorney who failed to persuade the Supreme Court to find the Independent Counsel Act unconstitutional. According to United Press International: Attorney General John Ashcroft said of Thompson and Olson, "These are two very outstanding individuals, whose records of public service, including service with the Department of Justice, are exemplary." Thompson was from 1982 to 1986 the United States attorney for the Northern District of Georgia, directing the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force and serving on the attorney general's Economic Crime Council. Thompson returned in 1986 to King & Spalding as a partner, engaging in both civil and criminal litigation. He was graduated cum laude from Culver-Stockton College in 1967, then received a master's degree from Michigan State University in 1969 and a law degree from the University of Michigan in 1974. Ashcroft said of Olson, "The department is fortunate to have someone with so much legal experience and talent dealing with the complex and significant issues of the solicitor general's office." At 60, Olson, originally from Los Angeles, is one of the nation's most-successful appellate lawyers, and has argued 15 cases before the Supreme Court. President Ronald Reagan appointed him in 1981 as assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, which acts as the federal government's advisory lawyer. Before his previous service with the Justice Department in Washington, Olson was a partner in the Los Angeles law firm of Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher, which he had joined in 1965. After that tour in government, he returned in 1984 to the firm's Washington office as co-chair of its appellate and constitutional-law practice group. Olson received his law degree in 1965 from the University of California at Berkeley. newsmax.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (5929)	2/15/2001 6:45:25 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm sorry Karen, You are of course entitled to believe whatever you wish, but that does not make it logical. If you don't know, if your not sure, then to proceed anyway is reckless. I do a little hunting, and there is an axiom that all hunters hold to, "if your not sure, don't shoot" What you think is a moose could just as easily be someone's cow, or tragically, another person. I think many people go ahead and pull the trigger on an abortion when they are not sure, and by the time they realize that they were lied to, it's too late. Then comes the realization that what was presented to them as just a cluster of cells, was in fact their own child. I think Chris was wrong when he said there were no long term effects related to abortion. (EDIT) (I'm not sure this is what Chris was saying) I know this because some of my friends have had abortions and I've seen what they are going through. Abortion is killing, and it is a sin, but there is forgiveness and grace for even that. You are right about it being an emotionally charged and painful issue, but I think you are wrong about it being a totally private matter. This is one of the few areas where a government does have a legitimate interest. The rights of the weakest members of our society must be defended against all injustice. If it is legitimate for a government to be interested in protecting the lives of children outside the womb, then I see no good reason not to extend that interest to the unborn. We are not allowed to kill our already born children because they are a financial burden, or sick, or just plain inconvenient. Why should we be able to do it to the not yet born? Greg