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: TimF who wrote (17353)	6/25/2001 10:18:12 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

Let's see, if you don't want an abortion the police won't be forcing down your door in order to give you one. Of course not "you"- a hypothetical woman, because "you" aren't able to get pregnant. And if I want one they won't be coming after me or my doctor. I understand why you think people should be able to compel other people to live by your morality (people all over the globe believe that about various and sundry issues) - it just strikes me as a bit self righteous and twit like. I'd like to compel people to do all sorts of things, for their own GOOD, of course, but I wouldn't do it. Karen has even got me convinced about seat belts. I decided that the laws for that were too restrictive. If Uncle Sam wants to police wombs and vaginas he can bloody well grow one of his own and guard that, and that goes for you too.

To: TimF who wrote (17353)	6/26/2001 8:01:34 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

I think I can follow (but not agree with) your reasoning for the idea that the best policy is to leave it up to the individual but I can't see how you could call that a compromise in this situation. Let me try to elucidate further. I think there are a lot of parallels between the abortion and global warming issues that might be useful. Once upon a time we had pro-abortion and anti-abortion. Now we have pro-choice and pro-life. The change was more than finding more attractive labels. The pro-abortion types co-opted the middle and took on the pro-choice label as their umbrella label. We forget now that, within the pro-choice camp we have everything from Chinese one-child types to abortion agnostics. There are lots and lots of people in the pro-choice camp who hate abortion but who don't think that we have enough certainty or consensus to call a fetus a human and, therefore, call abortion murder. That's not unlike the continuum of thinking on the global warming issue. For many, while they have some concerns about the prospect of global warming, they don't think we have enough certainty to jump into Kyoto with both feet given the cost and disruption that would cause. Similarly, we have those who look at making abortion illegal much as you look at Kyoto. We just don't know enough or have enough of a consensus to take such a drastic step. Maybe later, but not now. Now, we have true believers in both the abortion and global warming camps who shrilly wail about murder and a destroyed planet and feel strongly enough to try to impose their views through political action or terrorism. And we have people who think the true believers are totally nuts. Then there are people in the middle who want to wait a bit and see before they leap. Even though their reluctance has consequences, I can't fault it. Leaping has consequences, too. Karen