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 (4683)	2/20/2003 4:11:02 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 7720

No, the moderate position of Roe v. Wade, which merely liberalized first trimester abortions, allowed stricter regulation of second trimester abortions, and allowed the banning of late term abortions, has given way to abortion on demand in most states, and the difficulty of making restrictions stick without extensive litigation for those states willing to try to be more restrictive......

To: Lane3 who wrote (4683)	2/20/2003 4:28:53 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 7720

In fact, I think the Roe v. Wade slippery slope has been decidedly unslippery. States keep imposing barriers on the purported right to an abortion, and the SC is more and more upholding them, chipping away at what is supposed to be a constitutional right. Not that, personally, I believe it is. Roe was, from a legal standpoint, an absurd decision. Whether or not you believe women should have the right to an abortion, Roe was blatant legislating from the bench. But given that the decision exists, and that as a matter of law there is a constitutional right to an abortion (as it would be a constitutioanl right to hold slaves today if the SC said it was), the slippery slope is moving to restrict, not expand, that right.