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 (4142)	1/25/2003 12:47:56 AM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 7720

I will get back to you on that.....

To: Lane3 who wrote (4142)	1/29/2003 10:34:25 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 7720

Having mulled it for awhile, I think that you are wrong. If one were claiming justification for the homicide, you would be correct, but one is not. One is only declining to prosecute under extreme circumstances. Of course, you are correct that if the exception were too trivial, it would belie the concern with a right to life. However, rape and incest are generally deemed so destructive of the well- being of the victim that it does not trivialize the claim of a right to life to make a compassionate exception in each case, rather than adding to the original injury.......