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 (3912)	1/21/2003 6:06:53 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

<<Perhaps all the pro-lifers who concede rape, >> This gets tossed out a lot in the debate. I listen to Dr. Dean Edell on Sunday mornings and he talked about pregnancies caused by rape. The gist of the matter is very few pregnancies are caused by rape. The stress and trauma cause hormonal changes that make it virtually impossible for a fertilized egg to attach to the uterus.

To: Lane3 who wrote (3912)	1/21/2003 7:27:39 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 7720

t isn't less wrong, I don't think. I agree. If you are going to argue against abortion at all, the only basis on which you can justifiably argue, I think, is that the fetus is to some extent or other a person with certain legal rights. I suppose you could argue on pragmatic grounds, that abortion is more dangerous than childbirth, that we need more people in this country even if they're babies unwanted by their mothers, both of which I think are factually wrong, Or maybe some other pragmatic ground. But for me, the only argument that holds water is that the fetus is entitled to legal protection. And if that's your position, it doesn't matter how the fetus was conceived, whether by rape or loving congress or indiscretion or whatever.