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: The Philosopher who wrote (4266)	1/29/2003 1:34:55 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

Yes, the cases are not precisely the same, all I am doing is invoking the principle that there may reasons to treat matters differently, and that we are not obliged to criminalize abortion in each case. Personally, I would exclude all but forcible rape, and require that the woman had gone to a doctor, clinic, or emergency room within 24 hours of the incident, to verify a prima facie case for the occurrence of the rape. I would then require that the pregnancy be verified by her next menstrual cycle, so that it was likely a result of the rape, with verification requiring a doctor's confirmation in handwriting. Then, with those two documents, the one verifying the rape,and the other verifying the pregnancy in a timely way, I would consider sufficient defense against being sanctioned, through the first two trimesters, but not the last. I would consider Xeroxes on file in the doctor's office sufficient as a defense in that case. Is such a thing abusable? Yes, but at least we ask for a good prima facie case that the terminated pregnancy was as a result of forcible rape, and rely on professional assessments and documentation.........