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 (6009)	2/16/2001 11:50:13 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Some things would no doubt change but I doubt the sky would fall in. You've answered my question--you have not thought this through. You stopped the thought process once you concluded that the life of a fetus trumps everything. Your belief about what's right is one thing. Public policy is another. Whenever we create or change a law, we have a responsibility to implement that change in a healthy way. That requires planning. And communicating. It's no different than Microsoft being obligated to get the bugs out of its operating system upgrade before ending the beta test and putting it on the market. Sure, they're allowed to miss a little something here and there, but only a little something, not a big something. Too much is at stake not to think it through. It's not reasonable to expect people to buy into your vision when you can't demonstrate to them how the change would affect them and others. My goodness, at least there needs to be a good faith effort to show that an effort has been made to think it through. I still say "no one has yet given a remotely satisfying answer, as to why an unborn child should be denied the status, and thereby the rights, of a fully human being." You have not offered any here The status quo is always the default. The status quo does not have to be defended. The proposed change needs to be presented in a compelling and convincing way. I am not proposing that an unborn child be denied any status that it has now. I'm not proposing anything except that those who want to make the change not try to impose it without building a consensus or without assuring a stable change process through planning. That's all. I have tried to present arguments for both the consensus and the planning. I have never argued for changing the status to any fetus. If you want to enlist me and others like me in your cause, I have gone so far as to tell you what is likely or unlikely to work. I can't make your case for you. Karen

To: Greg or e who wrote (6009)	2/16/2001 1:02:27 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I'm sure Starbucks will manage just fine. Just one more point about this. I'm not worried that the sky will fall in. I would, however, like to know what color it will be when I wake up tomorrow. Just so you'll understand, I'll give you an example. I once worked for a mortgage broker. This was in the early 70s. At that time a couple could not include the wife's income to qualify for a mortgage unless she could prove she was unable to have children. Otherwise, the mortgage industry assumed that she would quit work to have babies and the mortgage would be at risk. There was a question of whether having one's tubes tied was ample proof or whether a hysterectomy was required. I remember it well. When I asked about Starbucks, I was not concerned about the company. I was wondering if your scenario would include, for example, that the convenience store or Starbucks would be required by law to card women to be sure they weren't pregnant before selling them cigarettes or coffee, which are harmful to fetuses. Or perhaps just not selling cigarettes or coffee to women of child-bearing age. Or what? What laws might we have to protect a fetus? I'm not saying that because Starbucks might have to card customers that we shouldn't award human legal status to a fetus, I'm just trying to plan for contingencies. Karen