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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (76695)	10/11/2004 7:10:14 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793790

I figure that if a person declines to reply to an extremely simple hypothetical question but instead claims that she can't because "stuff like" child rape "don't register" with her, it's probably because she feels replying honestly would somehow disadvantage her. If the question were puzzling, that would be different. But it's not. I'm afraid, Cobe, that I don't believe that the reason you answer is that you "have no idea" how you would vote on a statute that criminalized for non-Catholics, abortion in the cases of rape, incestuous child rape, or when the gestation would kill the pregant woman. Would you vote for a statute that would make illegal early abortion, including for non-Catholics, in cases like the ones above? And how about the second question? It's not a very hard one, either, and isn't about a statute, it's about how you personally would apply your "no nuances" position re who is and isn't a Catholic in other situations: IYO is one who believes (for example) that sex outside of marriage is the business of the parties involved, also not a Catholic, "no nuance allowed"? Is everyone you've ever known who engaged in sex outside of marriage (or would have had with enthusiasm had the right opportunity arisen), iyo not a Catholic?