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: Lane3 who wrote (109735)	4/17/2005 12:21:01 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793800

This is a very difficult question to find middle ground. Sure you can try to come up with some arbitrary point and define it as the middle but many on one side or the other will see you giving the essential point away to the other side. It won't be just the fringe extremists that will have a problem with the resulting decision. To the extent that there can be any sort of compromise, it could involved leaving it up to the states. Maybe some of the pro-choice people, who recognize that the majority of the states will be pro-choice, would at least consider it it, as would the constitutional strict constructionists, and the pro-life people most inclined to accept any form of compromise. The problems with this solution 1 - You would have to overturn Roe vs. Wade at that would be a very tough sell with almost any part of the pro-choice side. 2 - From the pro-life perspective you still would be allowing an abomination. 3 - It wouldn't resolve the battle, just move it to the states. Tim