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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rollcast... who wrote (225218)	2/5/2002 3:20:47 PM
From: Ann Corrigan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769668

Yes, they would only consider it a start.. ************************************************************ So, you're saying the anti-abortionists would use the compromise by the pro-choicers as a weapon to further degrade a woman's rights? If so, why should the pro-choicers be so foolish? It's all a pipe dream any way on the part of the anti-abortionists. This is the 21st Century & unless Mssrs Falwell & Robertson start their own Taliban of America--I doubt stringent rules will be set in place by the Supreme Court. The answer, of course, is for all those involved to acknowledge God's trust in womanhood when he gave them alone ovaries. If he had doubts, men would also be equipped with reproductive parts. Why would the all-knowing God entrust the protection of the human race to a group he thought would be irrepsonsible with said trust? Are fundamentalists questioning the wisdom of their creator?