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.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (28284)	1/16/1999 10:05:00 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

You do not understand the right to privacy do you? That whole line of cases impacts a whole host of others issues and rights I am sure you never thought of- I KNOW you never thought of. I have taken constitutional law and at least read and considered the cases which I am sure you have not. If there is no right of privacy, I see no reason why the State could not force women on welfare to use contraceptives. If we do not control our bodies the State will control them for us and I believe your blind zealousness on this one issue prevents you from seeing the hideous outgrowths of such a policy. Thank goodness you aren't in charge of anything except your own pecker.

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (28284)	1/17/1999 2:47:00 AM
From: Father Terrence	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Bob: The simple fact is in a free society where individual freedoms are respected and government is subordinated to the rights of the individual, drugs would not be illegal. At the most they would be regulated. Nor would the government have any power to confiscate personal property. Nor would there be a BATF, a DEA or EPA agents running around with guns. (Why does the EPA need armed agents now??) FT

To: Sidney Reilly who wrote (28284)	1/22/1999 12:22:00 AM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<The fact that abortion was a back alley operation before roe v wade shows it was not accepted. It was illegal until that was reversed by the extreme court in 1973. They pulled a rabbit out of their hat and said it was there all along, which it was not. It's another step forward in the process to institute the policies of radical elitists who want to limit the growth of the lower classes.> Bob, are you seriously asserting that the elites support abortion so that there will be fewer poor children born? If so, do you have any proof at all? I certainly wasn't aware that poor women got abortions more frequently than any others, and I have never seen any statistics that would lead me to believe so.