SI
SI
discoversearch

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 (3489)12/24/2002 5:53:50 PM
From: TimF  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 7720
 
I leave the rest of the post for Neo to respond to. I will only adress this one part.

" involves the responsibility of the woman for running the risk of conception."
Do I detect a hang up about sex here?

I don't. The argument could be made that a woman should not have to support the fetus if she wasn't responsible for its creation but that if she was responsible then she would not have to support it (in this case support it insider of her). It would be like arguing that a person should not have to pay child support if they where raped but normally would have to.

I'm not really arguing for the rape exception, just trying to explain one argument for it.

Tim



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (3489)1/3/2003 2:09:32 PM
From: Neocon  Respond to of 7720
 
Leniency is something we extend to the perpetrator, for various reasons. It has nothing to do with whether it is the baby's "fault".

How does noting that most sex, being voluntary, does entail some responsibility for the outcome, indicate a "hang up"?

It is a shame it is not obvious to you.........


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News