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 (6040)	2/16/2001 2:48:14 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 82486

Karen, are you really worried about buying cigarets, or is that just a (pardon the pun), smoke screen. I am very worried about women who poison their offspring in the womb. I worry about it now and I would worry about it even more if the pre-born were awarded personhood. First of all there would be even more of these compromised babies being born. And secondly, if they were persons, I'd think they would then have the right to be protected from cigarettes, alcohol, drugs, listeria, cat feces, etc. It sounds like you would agree. I'd be surprised if anyone would disagree. The question then becomes what programs do we put in place to protect the fetus. If a mother is found to be addicted to any substance, and refuses to receive treatment, then she should be incarcerated just like any other criminal until the child can be safely put into the care of someone who will give a rats ass for it. Yeah, we could do that. That would mitigate the effect of substance abuse on the fetuses that somehow came to the attention of the authorities. But is that enough? Shouldn't we start protecting the fetus before the woman has a chance to poison it? We have laws and monitoring to protect born children from poisoning. We don't build schools on toxic waste dumps. We don't let children buy cigarettes. Wouldn't we have to take some affirmative steps to protect fetuses? Karen