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: Neocon who wrote (37063)	11/16/2001 8:59:42 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

As a practical matter, we do permit women to give up their children to orphanages or adoption, in an orderly manner, but until such time as the paperwork goes through and the transaction can be affected, we hold them responsible for the child's care. Well, how kind. Why not allow them the chance not to bear the child in the first place?? We would be asking little more in requiring them to carry to term before ridding themselves of the child........ Bizarre. This is just... weird is too kind. Do you like the concept of brood mares? Keep a nice little stable of pregnant women? Because of course we have such a shortage of children in orphanages, don't we. It's important to keep up the supply of unloved infants. Oh, and who cares if the mother's forced to bear them. She'll glow with health the whole way through, and it won't cost her anything. Yeah, of course. Clearly, that was spoken without thought, by someone who's never been pregnant... BTW, I've never been pregnant either. BUt I can at least empathise. I'm not a father, either. I'd like children. But I don't think I have the right to force anyone to bear them.

To: Neocon who wrote (37063)	11/16/2001 9:06:51 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Pregnancy is, by and large, a healthy condition for a woman. (It is child- bearing that is dangerous, although much less so under modern conditions). Parasites feed off of you to your detriment, they do not cause physical changes which enhance your stamina and make you "glow". So there is a certain short-term benefit (sometimes). Which balances the short-term sickness, aches, strains, and inconvenience? Longer term, would you say that the uterine damage, blood vessel damage, strained joints etc which can result balance whatever longer-term benefits there are? (I don't actually know if there are any). Women, in my experience, choose children despite the pains and sufferings of pregancy, not for its benefits... do you know many different?? I was using the term 'parasite' more as an analogy, attempting to represent the position of an unwanted embryo... but unless you can come up with long-term health benefits for the mother from pregnancy (including childbirth) I may have spoken even more truly than I realised.