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: Lane3 who wrote (78805)	11/8/2003 10:58:54 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I understand your distinction, but not your difference. There is an absolutely guaranteed contraceptive procedure. That is called abstinence. Anything less than that carries risks of pregnancy. What you seem to be saying is that if a couple uses no contraceptive devices and the woman gets pregnant she is not morally entitled to an abortion as a contraceptive alternative, but if they try some contraception procedure (maybe rhythm?) and she gets pregnant then they are morally entitled to use abortion as a back-up contraception procedure. In either case, there is a possibility of pregnancy and a possibiliy of no pregnancy, and in either case the couple is relying on abortion for the sole purpose of contraceptive use. In my view, you're trying to split an unsplittable hair.