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: average joe who wrote (16779)	6/15/2001 7:50:14 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Leaving aside (for a minute) the specific issue of abortion funding; I think when it comes to considering the appropriate role of government in subsidizing the individual in various ways, it becomes necessary to be somewhat more pragmatic than principled. Human beings have certain physical needs; but they also have social and psychological needs. The truth is that, at the point where individuals no longer identify themselves as being valuable and valued in the social structure--we will either help them to some degree--or they will help themselves. If they help themselves, we pay over and over. It isn't just the shoplifting, the stolen vehicles, the robberies, etc. But it is the cost of prosecution, prison time, and so forth. In terms of abortion, I have never believed that anyone should have to fund something which violates a strong religious belief. If someone believes they are contributing to murder and thus (in their own mind) placing their own soul at risk, then I think that there can be no justification, in a country which values religious freedom, for forcing anyone to act against conscience. But this opens up a whole can of worms where there do not appear to be any pat answers.