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: Elroy who wrote (211588)	1/2/2007 5:37:46 PM
From: Noel de Leon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Not for me to decide. It's up to the Supreme Court. The individual states can decide(figure out) what ever they want. The Supreme Court decides(figures out) what is constitutionally correct for all of us. This is one aspect(of many) of American style democracy which should be exportable. It's, of course, open to debate and to revision as different times provide different interpretations of what is correct. For example it is not inconceivable that the religious right could make the bible the law of the land. That would signal the end of the American democracy and the start of an American theocracy. The Supreme Court may well rule that such a theocracy is unconstitutional at which point the leadership of the theocracy would pass a law abolishing the Supreme Court and the Constitution.

To: Elroy who wrote (211588)	1/2/2007 10:16:44 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

If the majority of voters in a state want to ban abortion, because that's the policy they want their state to live under, I would say they have figured out what they want. The concept of "minority rights" would seem to apply. The majority doesn't, in America, automatically get to force the minority to heel. Is the majority justified in using the power of the state to mandate gestation for members of a minority? Not imo if they weren't justified in forbidding people of different races to marry. Hey, it's a benefit of being an American: some things are private. What is the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" if someone can vote themselves the 'right' to colonize your very uterus, for God's sake? The idea of government-mandated gestation feels to me very like the Chinese mandated abortion-program instituted to enforce the one-child family policy. Same idea: the state forces its powerful fist into your uterus. In one case, force an unwilling female to scrape out her uterus. In the other, force an unwilling female to gestate a fertilized ovum for nine months until it becomes a helpless human being. Yes, I know that the one child policy was about preventing famine, but the thought of it, in action, the thought of the state using its might against an individual pregnant woman has always made my blood run as cold, whether it's forcing her to abort or forcing her to gestate.