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 (18500)	7/17/2001 9:20:50 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

You know that society does not recogize the unborn as legal persons. Thus, the unborn do not have legal rights. Why are you trying to dance when the piano isn't playing? I wasn't arguing what society recognizes but what it should recognize. If I just use the term rights I am probably not talking about legal rights. I will usually use the specific term legal rights or perhaps constitutional rights when I am talking about such things. Social policy, in the matter of RIGHTS--CANNOT reflect a premise that has no legal or consensual acceptance or support. This seems to be almost a religion with you, or at least a philosophical belief. It isn't a scientific one nor is it one that opposing is inherently illogical. As I have said before some things are violations of human rights even if the laws and customs of the society say they are ok. The legal status of the unborn can be examined in case law--and in other FACTS that inform our common society. I am not begging the question by trying to communicate with you on this matter. If you do not respect a rational basis for communication, well--there is nothing compelling you to favour either logic, rationality...or lucidity. The case law itself is begging the question, to an extent even in the realm of constitutional rights. It takes legal gymnastics to turn anything in the Constitution in to the Roe vs. Wade decision. I don't think something is automatically right just because the Supreme Court says it is. Esp. when we go beyond the constitutional issue (which we were not really discussing up to now) but rather to the broader abortion issue. Citing case law to me is in this context no more authoritative in this then your own personal arguments. Instead of Solon saying "X is true, and Y is false", you have a judge making the same announcement. Tim