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: pezz who wrote (50574)	5/31/1999 10:21:00 AM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

No Pezz. There are recognized exceptions to the ban on killing another. A soldier in war, self defense, etc. Aborting a pregnancy to save the life of a mother or in a case of rape or incest narrowly adds to the list for well defined and understandable reasons. I used to be "prochoice" until I became a father. Can't stomach the thought any longer. I think these things are best not regulated by the same government that administers the post office and welfare programs. JLA

To: pezz who wrote (50574)	5/31/1999 2:42:00 PM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

No, it is not about control. It is about making a reasonable accommodation to those who are not responsible for their condition,and takes into account the residuum of doubt that may exist about the precise nature of the fetus. Have you ever heard of being 95% percent certain, certain enough that it is worth banning under most circumstances, but not so certain that one would force someone to carry a child that was the result of rape?...