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 (10297)	1/29/2006 9:26:35 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542129

But I'm afraid I still see it as a right but not an obligation of the state to provide the resources. An affirmative or positive right to an abortion, would mean the right to have an abortion provided for you. (Most likely through government funding although I suppose in theory there could be another method. When you say "a right to an abortion" you mean a "negative" right to an abortion. "Negative" in this context is not an assertion that abortion, or the right to have one is a bad thing, but rather an assertion that people have a right against other people stopping them from having an abortion. Karen Holt is calling this a right to privacy. The advantage of that terminology is it shuts out conflagation of negative and positive abortion rights. The disadvantage of the terminology that she (and many other people) use is IMO that the right isn't really a general right to privacy. The word privacy (at least in common usage) isn't that strongly connect to either a positive or negative right to abortion. It pretty much has no connection to a positive abortion right, and only a slim one to a negative abortion right. The slim connection being that if it is truly private (no one but the woman and the abortion provide know about it) than how you prosecute? Tim