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: lorrie coey who wrote (32465)	2/6/1999 11:55:00 AM
From: Bob Lao-Tse	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Despite the fact that I am, as I've already said, pro-choice, I can, at least as far as the concept of the individual goes, understand the pro-life stance of the pro-life members of the Republican party. As you said, they claim a belief in the primacy of the individual. They are pro-life at least in part because they believe that a fetus is an individual. And as an individual it has a "right to life," thus the phrase. The thing that bothers me about this entire debate is that I tend to agree with that view, but I also recognize that people have a definite tendency to put themselves in situations that they recognize only when it's too late to avoid them. Since I also believe that there are already too many people being born, and that any population decrease is a good thing, we might as well start with the fetuses of women who don't want them anyway. I can't see how having one less unwanted child in the world can be anything but a good thing. All this is why I continue to hope that we can someday live in a world where abortions are easy, safe and readily available, and nobody has one. -BLT

To: lorrie coey who wrote (32465)	2/6/1999 4:00:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

<<expect the party that champions the primacy of "the individual" to support the concept of individual reproductive rights...they can't have it both ways.>> Right "get government of the peoples' back" Would seem to mean allowing women to make their choices. I remember when I was a Hippy in the 60s some of my brethren shouted down some speakers at Columbia U who they didn't approve of. They were the same people who spent so much time talking about free speech over the Viet Nam issue.....<sigh>.....I guess both sides only mean freedom to do what they approve of. pez