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: aladin who wrote (109612)	4/16/2005 9:41:41 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Can there be no middle ground? Of course there's middle ground. But the polarization is outrageous. Normal folks like you and me can easily see common ground. In fact, the Supreme Court came up with reasonable common ground with its trimester plan, not unlike what you just suggested. You do recall the notion that the first trimester was the prerogative of the woman but that the states could restrict abortions beyond that? Seems reasonable to me. Now, the way that particular common ground was determined--through SC fiat, was problematic, but the common ground is still valid. Why aren't we following it? after all it has international backing and precedent. Cute! <g>

To: aladin who wrote (109612)	4/16/2005 12:27:07 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793801

Maybe we could be more civil about this and set a date like they do in Europe. England has set it at 24 weeks - anything before is ok and anything after is illegal. Of course with medical advances they are considering moving the bar to 20 weeks. I don't know whether you are aware or not, but that's the same path of Roe versus Wade. The court's conception was a trimester one: leave it in the hands of women in the first trimester, then the state had a progressively greater interest in the second and third trimester. As for the battle over so-called "partial birth abortion", it's over whether the health of the mother is a variable. I've never understood the argument that says her health should be ignored.