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: JohnM who wrote (109739)	4/16/2005 8:17:02 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793801

I've got two sort of umbrella reasons. You've given me two reasons for resisting restrictions on partial birth abortions. They are valid reasons, IMO. However, they don't speak to the point that was on the table. The point, if you recall, was the utility of legislation against partial birth abortions if you include an exemption for the health of the woman. I think that the exemption would obviate the objective in that almost all of the abortions currently done would still be done, just under the guise of protecting the health of the woman. So I think that the lifers resistance to the exemption is apt. The partial birth abortion question is a difficult one for the lifers. Legislation is obviously unconstitutional without the exemption and useless with it. I'm pro-choice so it's not my problem. I don't see much point in banning them since they are very few in number and always done under very difficult and tragic circumstances, which is a scenario not well suited to legislation. But I've never been able to persuade a lifer of that. Now, as to the point. I said the concern that an exemption for the health of the woman would not reduce the number of those abortions, just reassign the reason, was valid. You say not. If you can handle another multi-paragraph post, please explain to me why.