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 : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (28072)	4/25/2008 2:13:04 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

"The law has to balance principles with practicality." Exactly! and therein lies the problem with the idea that "human life begins at conception, and all human life must be protected." Taken to its logical end, that would mean that a woman who doesn't know she's pregnant and takes dope or drinks too much alcohol, thereby harming the fetus, could be liable for criminal charges. And if she KNOWS she's preggers, and does those harmful things anyway, the penalties could be even more severe. Whether BC pills prevent conception or prevent implantation, is sort of a side issue that can be cussed and discussed depending on the political side of the observer. The real question is HOW MUCH protection should be afforded an embryo. Your comment about "principles and practicality" is the whole crux of the issue. And, it goes right along with the associated question, namely, which life has priority, the woman's or the baby's?