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 (3990)	1/22/2003 5:18:37 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

Understood. I have a personal belief that laws should fit into a clear framework, otherwise they run a danger of becoming arbitrary, and I'm not sure I think yours falls within such a framework, but I can also see thatit's not an unreasonable position to take. As long as you accept the inherent danger, as I discussed before, of women trying to turn consensual sexual interactions into rapes in order to secure the right to an abortion. Personally, this danger scares me a lot, having been involved in some cases where the line between consent and rape was quite difficult to draw. And as long as you accept that it is legally possible now, as it was not some years back, for a man to rape his wife even when they are continuing to live together without any intent of separating and without any issue of violence, merely the wife saying she doesn't want to do it that night and the husband using his spousal influence to talk her into it. So there is the possibility of a married woman having to make the decision between carrying a child she does not want, and sending her husband to prison for rape. And who really knows what goes on in these bedrooms? But we would intrude the state into them in a most intimate way.