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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (15891)	11/24/1998 8:49:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No, a continuation of the original assault meaning the assault against the fetus (due to an abortion). In other words, the rapist is morally responsible for both the assault against the woman and the resulting assault against the fetus if an abortion is chosen. All I'm trying to say is that there is a philisophical argument to be made, even among "pro-lifers", to support the right to choose an abortion as a result of rape. The victim of the rape could, of course, choose to be a "good Samaritan" and have the child. But should the government force someone to be a "good Samaritan" to save someone else's life (especially if they have absolutely no responsibility for causing the situation)?