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.

Pastimes : The Boxing Ring Revived -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (3409)	12/13/2002 5:06:03 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

I was not really arguing, I was reacting to an article that Tim posted. Of course, the context is "if abortion policy became restrictive". There is nothing controversial about the sanctity of life. What is controversial is how to weigh to conflict between that value and autonomy. I gave my view as to why the controversy should resolve itself in the direction of restrictiveness. In any event, weighing it in favor of the sanctity of life would not be a "legal usurpation of autonomy", it would be acting in accord with a view that is so set against treating human beings like trash that it will not even risk erring with a first trimester fetus. (As you recall, I think that there should be leniency at that point in the pregnancy). Why should someone who is biased to excuse her abortion "make the decision" for the fetus about whether it is worth living in an orphanage or foster home? That is absurd. If the fetus cannot make a choice, society has to go on probabilities, and from all I know, it is probably good enough to have institutional care, granting other arrangements would be better....

To: Lane3 who wrote (3409)	12/13/2002 9:51:03 PM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

That some women are so cavalier about abortions is a shame, "but there it is." What has been forgotten for many decades now is WHY abortions are now legal. Abortions WERE performed before they were legal. If a woman was lucky they were performed by a doctor in his office or a hospital and called something else; "D&C" was a common excuse. Some women flew to places like Switzerland or the Scandinavian countries where they were legal. And if they weren't lucky, they attempted it themselves or had it done by a "back alley abortionist". The results were often fatal. And, if the woman did live, she often ended up contracting infections that resulted in sterility. That certainly did solve the pregnancy problem for her. I suspect in Neocon's calculus, that means more lost souls though. I suppose God, in his infinite mercy, holds that against the woman. The results of illegal abortions were related to economic class, of course. If you were at least middle class, you might get a US doctor to do it. Failing that, you could probably afford a ticket to a foreign country. If you were poor, you took your chances. But this isn't a simple case of death-or-no-death, as Neocon would have it. Nothing like that. Neocon's choice also condemns people to death. The Supreme Court's answer to what was a growing problem with more and more victim's was Roe v. Wade.