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: Neocon who wrote (3963)	1/22/2003 12:27:21 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Thus, in the case of rape, the mother would be presumed to be psychologically in extremis, and society would decline to punish her for seeking an abortion. That might be a basis for mitigation. It would not, I think be a basis for automatic right to abortion. If it were, there would be a huge temptation for women who wanted abortions to claim that they were raped. The issues of date rape and marital rape are already murky. If you add in that a woman who had sex on a date and got pregnant could only get an abortion if she claimed that the sex act was rape and not consensual, you open, IMO, a huge can of worms. Particularly given the decision in a case where the woman on a date did NOT say she didn't want to have sex, in fact, initially consented, then just said in the course of the act "I need to go home," not "stop" or "no more" "pull out now" or anything else definitive, just "I need to go home," and the Court interpreted that statement, after the fact, as not meaning "I need to go home sometime" but "I need to go home now and you need to withdraw this second and let me go home" and convicted him of rape. And of course you have the view of some radical feminists that EVERY sex act between a man and woman is in fact rape, even those apparently consensual sex acts occuring between married people. So if you pass a law saying that a woman can't get an abortion unless she charges the guy with rape, well, Pandora's Box isn't the beginning of it.

To: Neocon who wrote (3963)	1/24/2003 1:18:44 AM
From: Solon	Respond to of 7720

"I cannot argue with someone like Solon, who insists that autonomy, as he understands it, trumps all, and gets abusive when you point out that that is not so. Or how can I argue with Karen? who professes not to understand why, if abortion is homicide, there might be no uniform standard of punishment, even though it has been pointed out that society often considers circumstances affecting intent and/or providing mitigation in weighing sentencing" Lordy! I haven't seen such deep wounds since my little brother took the short-cut through the bull pasture! You had an enjoyable sulk, then?! "Solon, who insists that autonomy, as he understands it, trumps all" What a bizarre comment. Truly empty and off-the-wall. Believing that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness has somewhat to do with the principle of autonomy does not mean that autonomy trumps penicillin as a medicine, or clean socks as a confidence booster. Your trouble is that you would prefer to insist that your opinions are right because you say they are, and to insist, as well, that your opinion on matters is a short-cut to truth--a short-cut which may advantageously bypass the annoyance of evidence, logic, consistency, and common sense.