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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: The Philosopher who wrote (76567)	10/6/2003 12:21:51 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I can understand the state's interest in protecting a viable fetus from the reckless disregard of the woman carrying it. The question is whether this kind of action protects it or not. I don't see how it would. All it does is punish the woman to no good end. I mean, is the next retarded homeless addict going to do something different because of this? Don't think so. She'll just be giving the state another woman to prosecute. If the state's interest is in expressing its outrage, that's another matter. It surely has done that. But it could have done that with a manslaughter charge or a reckless endangerment charge or some such. This doesn't seem like murder to me. If the state's interest is simply in finding a poster child for chipping away at legal abortion, OTOH, well, you know what I think of that.