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: J. C. Dithers who wrote (37033)	11/15/2001 11:03:57 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

you seem to be clearly saying here that the one person who has absolutely no say in the matter ... is Jake JC, It is not I who says that Jake has no say in utero, and exists as a person with rights only after he is born, it is the law. I understand that you are having trouble separating what I am saying about Jake's CASE being irrelevant to the law, from the precious Jakechild (whose life is far from irrelevant), but there is a difference. My initial point was only that I felt you had spoken of "women" as being somehow cavalier and inconsistent in their approach to the issue, and I was not the only one who found your comments condescending. My actual views on abortion are private, and I have no need to justify them or myself here but they were not arrived at easily, nor have they remained unchanged through the years. From discussions with the other women here, I know none of them is without deep feelings and convictions on this. In fact, while there are certainly women who may treat abortion as a sort of a gynecological enema, I don't believe that this is a prevalent attitude. I see from your later posts that you have a religious perspective on this, and I for one am not at all interested in that particular form of the argument, so I will withdraw from this discussion with apologies for whatever you saw as a personal attack on you.