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: cosmicforce who wrote (7220)	3/3/2001 11:38:21 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think that is a reasonable reaction. I disagree with abortion as a means of population control, though, and would promote such things as diaphragms with spermicide, or spermicide treated condoms, instead. They may not be infallible, but I suspect that most pregnancy ocurring using these means are a result of user error (i.e., the reuse of a condom, the failure to replenish the supply of spermicidal jelly, the failure to have one's gear on hand when the mood strikes). As for the issue of unwantedness: with the exception of rape and incest, I think we would do better to shore up the concept of responsibility for one's actions. If you choose to have sex, you are running the risk of pregnancy. If you bring life into the world, it is your responsibility, and cannot be easily shrugged off. There has been an increase in child abuse since RvW, and it is my belief that the two are connected. Consider this: someone thinks of having an abortion, but decides not to. After the baby is born, she continues to be ambivalent. When in high stress situations, such as when the baby is on a crying jag, she reflects that she could have saved herself the trouble had she terminated the pregnancy. Resentment grows, and she slaps the kid around. Had there never been a "choice", I believe there would be a greater sense that the baby is hers to take care of, and a stronger sense of responsibility. In the same period, paternal shirking, for example, of child support payments, has grown. Again, I see a connection. If the child belongs to the mother, and the father has no say about the pregnancy, then how can one burden him with paternity obligations? Of course, if he encouraged her to have it, with certain promises, he still has obligations. But what if he encouraged her to abort? What if she did not solicit his opinion, but insisted it was solely up to her? Generally, the concept of paternal obligation takes a real hit. But more than this: by marking out human beings as candidates for death who are guilty of nothing, and who will develop if left to themselves, we open up a Pandora's Box of differentiation among various people as being more or less worthy of protection. Only fully developed, healthy adults could claim a full right to life. Those who are less developed, or sickly, or dependent would, to varying degrees, be less worthy. By killing human beings in the womb, we weaken the underlying social commitment to protect the weak and innocent.......