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: Solon who wrote (7185)	3/2/2001 6:35:30 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I would say pregnant woman have the same rights as anyone else in this situation" I would say they don't. Being pregnant ought not to mean that a person foregos the right to end their own EXISTENCE. I know you disagree. Yes I disagree, but I will say that (from my perspective) they do have the same rights as everyone else, but that statement even if true might not be very meaningful. If you have a right but no ability to exercise it, some would say it is less valuable. If I have a right to live but X feeds me to a tiger my right didn't help me much in a practical sense. To an extent the equality of rights that the pregnant woman has in that situation is like the equality of law that "forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges." (note here I am quoteing myself rather then your comments) "Bill Clinton can buy a full page add in the New York Times every day or have a press conference (that the press will actually attend). I can not do these things" Not that it really makes any difference but I meant to (and thought I did) say Bill Gates rather then Bill Clinton. Ability has nothing to do with rights. You both have the right to die irrespective of your abilities to draw a crowd. The ability to draw a crowd was part of my making an analogy with the right to free speech rather then suicide, but that doesn't really refute your point. You say ability has nothing to do with rights, what if that ability is constrained not by your wealth, or contacts, or skills, but by the fact if you exercise your rights you will violate the rights of someone else? People have every right to intervene against someone threatening others. There is established law as to the force required to defend oneself from the threats of another. I believe something like, not more than the necessary force... That seems generally reasonable for most cases if rather vague. I suppose it would have to be vague to adequately cover all cases. Tim