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.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (358016)	2/12/2003 10:40:16 AM
From: jerry manning	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"The only issue is where the right to control one's body ends. It ends when the growth is no longer part of one's body." TP Well heck, that makes it easy. Deliver the child...kill it (still part of her body)...cut the cord...throw it in the human tissue basket. NOW I understand. Are you for real?

To: TigerPaw who wrote (358016)	2/12/2003 10:59:37 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

I can see that I have given you too much credit. By the way, it is ludicrous to call me an "extremist" when about three quarters of the American people agree with me on PBAs, and when about 42% agree with me generally on abortion. My point of view is perfectly mainstream. Motivation is not relevant. The abstract question of intrusiveness is the only thing relevant. But the right of control over own's body is not absolute, for example, one can be compelled to give blood in a judicial inquiry, or can be drafted into military service in times of national emergency. In the context of bringing a child to term, the intrusiveness is very temporary and comparatively light. Thus, it is not a severe impairment of autonomy, overall. If, then, there is a compelling interest in upholding the sanctity of life, as there obviously is, for example, in banning late- term abortions, the state is free to legislate such a ban........