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: greenspirit who wrote (42483)	6/28/1999 6:49:00 PM
From: Sam Ferguson	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

As a believer in mothers choice I will give you a good reason. You compare apples and oranges. First of all a fetus is not a living soul until it takes the first breath. It is not a baby until it breathes. It is not a life. IMHO the woman is no more guilty than you would be in murdering your sperm by failure to inject in the proper place. Using a rubber or birth control is not murder. Murder does not cover from erection through resurrection. Only when it concerns a living being and you cannot prove when life originates as a living soul.

To: greenspirit who wrote (42483)	6/28/1999 6:58:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 108807

Michael, stirring up the hornets' nest? Speaking as someone who has always fence-sat on the abortion issue, I must ask why you want to provoke yet another possibly acrimonious debate, especially since you know in advance what everyone is likely to say....<sigh> Joan

To: greenspirit who wrote (42483)	6/28/1999 7:52:00 PM
From: Neocon	Respond to of 108807

An interesting question, and one that may become relevant in the years to come...

To: greenspirit who wrote (42483)	6/28/1999 7:55:00 PM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 108807

A question that should have been specifically addressed to one who favors Partial-Birth or late-term abortions, which is by no means the same as a "pro-abortion person". As in most cases when strong arguments exist on both sides, I favor a compromise, in this case permitting abortion within the first 3 months. Of course, drawing lines is ridiculous in some ways; the difference between 3 months + 1 day and 3 months - 1 day is miniscule. But there are many cases where lines have to be drawn.

To: greenspirit who wrote (42483)	6/28/1999 9:41:00 PM
From: E	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

<<<<Neocon, here is a question I have yet to see a pro-abortion person answer. If it's legal to perform a partial birth abortion and kill a viable baby. Should it also be legal for you to experiment and disfigure the child for medical reasons? Example's might include, removing an eye, a leg, a heart, a lung, or injecting the fetus with an experimental drug. After all if it's a womens right to kill the child, should it not be a womens right to do any thing she pleases?>>>> I believe in legalized, safe abortion, and I'll answer your question as best I can. I don't believe in late term abortions except to save the life of the mother. I think that they are infanticide, and I don't think we should have legalized infanticide. I don't believe a fertilized egg is an infant, unless a hardboiled egg is a chicken dinner. It is often difficult to draw a line in life, but we do it all the time. I believe the line drawn at 26 weeks was drawn too late, and not marginally too late, either. As I said here once before, if nurses cry in the operating room, the line has been drawn wrong. If Roe v Wade had made the window during which an abortion could be performed legally and safely three months instead of 26 weeks, those who want to force a woman who conceived the night before to carry the fertilized ovum until it becomes a human being would have little success in recruiting for their cause. I feel comfortable with three months. I could be persuaded, maybe, that four months was reasonable. I think that's my outside limit. This is personal. Partial Birth Abortion is complicated for me because i have read such different things about it. If it is true that it is only done to save the life or health of the mother, that's one thing. If it's just a particularly macabre, very late term abortion, I'm against it. But... the idea of having the government say that this particular procedure can not be performed if a doctor advises it, and knowing only that, that the doctor has said to the woman, "this is what you should have," gives me the major creeps, I must say.