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: Rambi who wrote (78825)	11/8/2003 11:27:56 PM
From: The Philosopher	Respond to of 82486

I can't disagree with you that it makes economic sense to abort unwanted children. If this is viewed purely as an economic policy issue, or as a social policy issue where there is no question of ensoulment but the fetus is viewed in the same light as, say, the appendix, then I agree that there is no justification for the government prohibiting abortion. The only legitimate, IMO, reason to oppose abortion is the view that the fetus is a human being. And if you accept that view, then it is very much the same issue as slavery, equal rights for women and racial and religious minorities, etc. Yes, it's different from the other government regulated areas I mentioned, as they are all different from each other. My point only was that governments intrude frequently in decisions over what we may or may not do with our bodies (I didn't even get into illegal drugs, notice), so the argument of "keep your laws off my body" goes nowhere. As to whether I advocate abstinence into the 20s, yes, I do. I know it flies in the face of present social mores, but I think our young people would have better lives in many respects if they waited for marriage to be sexually active, or if they do not marry in their early 20s, at least wait until then. The idea that it is okay for 13, 14, 15 year olds to have intercourse is far from universal in human experience. It's going to happen, but it would happen a lot less if it were clearly violating a social taboo rather than, as seems to be the case, fulfilling the expectations of the liberal social agenda. Only slightly off topic, I find very interesting the studies that show that people who get married after living together have a higher rate of divorce than those who don't live together before marriage. Logically one might think that the opposite would be true, but it's not. I haven't seen any studies on whether people who delay sexual activity into their 20s have more stable marriages than those who don't, but I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that that's the case.

To: Rambi who wrote (78825)	11/11/2003 8:09:52 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

I occasionally read the RWers and find nothing but emotional rants about babykillers and eternal damnation. This is helpful? Its the equivalent to the pro-choicers comments about pro-lifers only wanting to enslave women, or control everything. Emotional rants come from all sides. In this case the rants from both sides are at least consistent with serious principles and moral ideas that the two sides hold, but it doesn't elevate them above a rant. A rant with a point might be better then a stream of contextless personal insults and invective, but its still a rant. Edit - I am not saying, nor should anything in my post be read as implying that you are prone to such rants. Tim