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: Bill who wrote (15921)	11/25/1998 11:08:00 AM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>While I don't want to get deeply into an abortion discussion, I'll give you my version of moderately pro-choice. This is someone whose teenage daughter gets pregnant against all advice of elders, is discovered in the first trimester, and cannot/will not be able to raise the child herself.< Yes. Understood. I of course think abortion in these cases reprehensible. Nevertheless I believe even here that a GOP candidate can successfully take this position if he exercises judgement that takes parents in consideration. If, for example, he/she allows parents the right to know of the abortion before or at the very least after an abortionist has done the surgery on the teenage girl, then even many of those of the RR would be willing not to abandon him/her. If parents are to be responsible for their daughters, the very least they should have is the right to know when someone is about to do surgery on them. It is unfair to use state might to divide parents from their children, yet demand parents take responsibility for them and then demand the parents live with the consequences of their actions, all this without having any idea what these actions are. And it makes no sense to deny the rights of all American parents in order to protect a potential and relative few parents who might stupidly harm their children in such circumstances. It would be better to give parents the right to know of when someone is about to medically treat their children and then deal with any mistreatment on a case-by-case basis. It is the candidate who claims abortion should be "safe, legal and rare" but who then commences to deny parents even this basic right and who champions the abortion status quo, even though it uses government to fund abortion and allows for what is pure infanticide, it is this sort of alleged "moderate" that those of the RR utterly detest, and for good reason. Personally, I will accept abortion even after birth were the government left out of it, and were no one forced to have one. As a morally defunct liberal has said here, abortion should have no place in politics. It should be a personal decision in the realm of church/temple/mosque and the soul. >It is someone who is raped resulting in pregnancy.< From what I can tell, it seems most of the RR would have little problem here. >It is a drug addict infected with AIDS who becomes pregnant.< I think were the RR assured that government funds will not go to the destruction of the child in this circumstance, they would accept it. But the candidate would have to be real on this point. He would have to be trustworthy. >It is someone who becomes pregnant due to an incestuous relationship.< I think this would fly. It has flown quite easily in the past with the RR. >It is someone with severe medical problems unable to deliver.< This would fly also, as it has in the past. Certainly there will be some who will not accept abortion under any circumstances at all, but most of the RR will accept it under "reasonable" (a tortured word here) conditions. >Moderately pro-choice means that an early term abortion becomes the lesser of two evils.< Yup. The RR would not prefer to embrace either evil, but is willing to allow you to do it if they could be guaranteed no part of it. >It is not the Pope's view or the view of the Pro-Life movement, but this is where most Americans, indeed most of the world, comes out on abortion.< Agreed. Many, if not most in the RR understand this. The current manner of dealing with this issue has been to run roughshod over the sentiments of the RR, using government force to advance the liberal social agenda. The RR deeply resents this, and so attempts to use government to fight back. Personally, I think the RR should drop out of our system completely, do exactly what the liberals want of them. But understand why they do not.