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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3418)	12/15/2002 7:56:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Religion is wrapped all around and runs through this "legal" question and you know it and I know it. If Roe v. Wade was legislation from the bench, reversing it or a Constitutional amendment banning abortion or returning it to the states is legislation from the pulpit That is total BS. People have religiously inspired opinions, but unless the position is directly about religion or is made by a religious organization (not campaigned for or influenced by a religious organization but made by one), it is not legislating from the pulpit or violating the separation of church and state or an example of making the US in to a theocracy. Tim

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3418)	12/16/2002 8:14:38 AM
From: Neocon	1 Recommendation Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Your attempt to make it illegitimate to be against legalized abortion by pretending it is a dogmatic position is silly. There is nothing derived from religious dogma in the argument that I have made. Disagree if you want, but don't be smarmy about it. I am no more adamant about refusing to take the current consensus as the final word than the abolitionists were about taking the legality of slavery in the South as final. Similarly to Dred Scott, the Supreme Court made a terrible error with Roe v. Wade.........