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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (166697)	7/21/2005 8:05:39 AM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

That, according to numerous sources, is correct. It remained legal through most of the 19th century, then religionist got state legislatures to pass laws outlawing it- -probably because medical advances had made it safer and commoner. Seems an unusual logic. Medical advances made the procedure safer therefore it was outlawed. Heart transplants are safer now, is someone moving to ban them? Maybe if we encouraged back alley coat hanger abortions the right would be happier. What is the compelling interest of the state in the murder of one private citizen by another? A fetus is not a private citizen. See Roe v. Wade [which addresses that point] and references to the Constitution ....throw in Aquinas for the Christians and the Old Testament for Christians and Jews. Maybe you ought to read Roe v. Wade. What? Define it. Then tell me why the comfort of the patient, particularly a terminal patient, doesn't override it. Look up the decision. It explained it. [Read past the first sentence.] The adjudication has not been completed. It can still be struck down. It could be. Look up prior precedents on the right to die. Most abortions do not involve danger to the life of the mother and you know it. I didn't say life of the mother, I said health of the mother. But there still is no demonstrated compelling interest of the State. jttmab