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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (10282)	1/29/2006 4:00:15 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 542101

I've discussed this subject with e for many years (and through many aliases) and I don't recall us ever disagreeing although I suppose I could have missed some nuance. Perhaps it's just a difference in emphasis that you see.

To: JohnM who wrote (10282)	1/29/2006 5:14:47 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542101

I don't think it established a right to abortion though. I think it is part of the cases that establish a right to privacy surrounding the body, and that it specified the government could not interfere in the process of choice about abortion with laws that banned abortion (or restricted it- but the SC has since weaseled on this). The SC did not mean that there was any affirmative duty to assure women had access to abortions (i.e. that they had a right "to" anything, other than possibly, if circumstances permitted, a right to make a choice) merely that the states, and the feds (absent a change in the constitution, presumably) could not legally interfere IN the choice, if a woman's circumstances allowed her a choice. That's not really a right to abortion- as far as I can see. It's a right to make a choice. But perhaps we all agree- you, and Karen and I- and we are merely hung up on the language? Gosh. I feel so nuanced I barely understand myself :-)