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: Dayuhan who wrote (34252)	4/10/1999 11:14:00 AM
From: Chuzzlewit	Respond to of 108807

Something fishy this way comes ... I've often wanted to know where the dividing line exists in the minds of the anti-abortion zealots. If an egg is fertilized and not yet implanted in the uterus, does it count? What of a spermicidal jelly -- is interfering with fertilization evidence of premeditation? And certainly one could argue that since sperm and egg are alive, any attempt to interfere with their ultimate union would constitute murder. Which leads to the proposition (I choose the word advisedly) that any woman who is fertile that refuses have intercourse is interfering with God's plan. Or maybe, just maybe, the problem is this: the thought that people may be enjoying themselves sexually without the pain and responsibility of subsequent parenthood drives these folks wild --the fear that someone, somewhere might be having a good time. I guess the unpardonable sin was really the separation of recreation from procreation. TTFN, CTC

To: Dayuhan who wrote (34252)	4/10/1999 1:01:00 PM
From: nihil	Respond to of 108807

Legal systems based on British models -- US legal system is almost exclusively based on English common law, in most cases explicitly. The only great exception is Louisiana which is explicit based on code law or Roman law, specifically Code Napoleon. The Political system was based on ideas common in the Enlightenment, some idealized Greek and Roman models. The concept of citizenry of a single social life is late Athenian. The House of Representatives was intended to be a popular assembly, as close to the great democratic assemblies of Athens as they could come with geographical dispersion. Terms were short, and most expected the House to be quite radical. The Senate's name was drawn from Roman model, but it was more like the Amphyctionic Council, and Assembly of representatives of the Sovereign but associated cities of Greece. Originally, the Senators were elected by State legislatures. The president was a British King for a a Term of Years. His disapproval (veto) was not absolute but could be overridden by a 2/3 vote. In the current form of monarchy in UK, the sovereign has almost no power (the only real power, which has been exercised in fairly recent times -- is the right to invite a person to form a government once the government resigns.) The president retains enormous unregulated power, which are difficult for Congress or the people to overcome. Moreover, the president has enormous influence -- the "bully pulpit" as Teddy R. called it. With TV, the president who is not an utter fool, can sway public opinion to where he wants it to be.

To: Dayuhan who wrote (34252)	4/11/1999 3:18:00 PM
From: O'Hara	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

><>...Afternoon Steven...><> You asked: The majority of the population, by virtually all polls, supports this right,and has defeated every organized attempt to remove it. As a loyal follower of the system, is it not your obligation to defer to its wisdom and accept its judgement? Wisdom my good man? Wisdom is not defined, nor gauged, according to the # of people who cast a yea or nay vote on any issue. For the rest of the story on Roe v. Wade please see the following. members.aol.com You also stated: On the issue of mother countries, I would say you are stretching it on the issue of maternity. Americans of British descent are far outnumbered by Americans of other ancestry, am sure, and it would be difficult to argue that our legal and political systems are based exclusively on British models. This statement of yours Steven, above all amazes me. You must be quite a young lad. Ancestry has not a thing to do with England being historically known as America's mother country. And but for, British common law, America would have none. Speaking of stretccccccching it, have you ever studied the Due Process Clause as it relates to the incorporating of substantive due process in the Roe case? Have a good day Shalom...><> BTW Steven, have you ever wondered what became of the child that Norma McCorvey(Roe), fought to abort? Have you ever wondered what became of McCorvey herself?