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.

Pastimes : The Sauna -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Poet who wrote (688)	7/12/2001 12:08:20 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1857

Thanks for bringing that decision to my attention. I didn't notice it in the Times this morning. Wow! I'm glad the court did that. I think that, every once in a while, sensible people just need to make a statement. There's no statement that needs to be made more than that people shouldn't produce offspring they're not willing and able to care for. However, I can't believe that it could possibly be constitutional. If it is, it shouldn't be. As much as a part of me would like to see licenses required to produce offspring, reproductive control just isn't consistent with a culture of liberty. The other problem with the ruling is that it's not enforceable. Courts can't go around making decisions that can't be enforced. What are they going to do? Force a vasectomy? Force an abortion? This story reminds me of the one about the welfare mom with 14 kids who challenged Marion Barry regarding her right to have as many kids as she wanted. We can't make law based upon the excesses of a few people who are over the top. One side note--can you believe what dopes those four women must be? Karen