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 : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (259356)	12/2/2022 11:50:45 AM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364142

Yes, I agree, it is about agency and conscience. The abortion issue is a dilemma, IMO. e.g. Sophie's Choice. There is no clear right or wrong per se, only a decision to be made by society. And the only way to make a decision in a dilemma is through and existential decision, which is what the Democrats will do when they gain the power in congress by codifying abortion rights across the country.. < As for abortion, I don't see that issue as being about privacy but rather about agency and conscience. I refer you to the Hobby Lobby decision.

To: Lane3 who wrote (259356)	12/2/2022 1:36:09 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 364142

You made an important point, which I seconded. It was about a principle, not an issue. Our constitution is not a "grantor" of rights; it is a "protector" of rights. Which is why those who deny unenumerated rights like privacy are wrongheaded. WE should keep in mind that "unenumerated rights" are not stipulated by the Ninth Amendment. The existence of them is confirmed, but they are not named. It is problematic when we begin to build rights into the Constitution by piling new "rights" on top of unenumerated rights. This can obviously get out of control quickly. In Griswold, a right to privacy conferred a right to contraceptive use. The right to marital privacy was properly inferred from various other amendments to create the right to marital privacy. Later, Roe extended the right to privacy to include the right to terminate a pregnancy. This inferred right held up reasonably well over the decades until someone said, "But what about the as yet "unborn human being"? Does it have a right to supersedes the mother's right to privacy? I was surprised to see you make that comment since your team has been choosing traditional practice over inherent human rights supposedly "endowed by our creator." You previously put forward the opinion that republics were about liberty, which is in contrast to what your team has been prioritizing. You and I may agree about some stuff, but I am a bit more skeptical about arbitrarily extending rights that are not specifically stipulated. My thinking on this is that we cannot allow our constitution to confer rights that require infringement of someone else's rights. So, in the 2010s some people started talking about a "right to healthcare" and it was nonsense -- because it inferentially creates a right to transfer money from the person who earned it to the person who is deemed to need health care. The right doesn't materialize out of thin air, it is created to the detriment of another person. It makes no sense to compromise rights of one in favor of another, and it does start to cut into liberty. In a situation where the abortion is presumed to be tantamount to the death of the "unborn human being", it does fundamentally change the calculus if one has to consider (as the State of Mississippi does, largely) that the death of the "unborn human being" is a killing to provide the woman with the inferred right to abortion. Own the disconnect. Not sure the disconnect really exists; I have personally supported a limited abortion option forever. It is a more difficult choice for me to get behind at this point which is why I have revised my former position to a more limited term during which I believe abortion is appropriate (before, I thought 22 wks was a reasonable cutoff and now i lean more toward 12 wks, but with reasonable exceptions)>