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: Lane3 who wrote (43287)	2/4/2002 3:05:48 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I like your hypothetical! Actually, though, this isn't as revolutionary a change as some make it out to be. In many states, assaulting a pregnant woman is considered an assault both on the woman and on the child, giving the unborn child independent legal status to be legally protected. And if an injury to a pregnant woman results in an injury to the child, who is born with some sort of defect traceable to the injury, the child has the right to sue for the damages done while s/he was in utero, again, giving it legal rights which pre-existed birth. These precedents have been harder cases for the abortion rights position because they basically approve of those protections.

To: Lane3 who wrote (43287)	2/4/2002 4:51:27 PM
From: YlangYlangBreeze	Respond to of 82486

o man! You're still here. Someone, and I can't remember who, told me, or I heard somewhere that you'd died. Seriously. I should have checked. Sorry. What a surprise to see you here.