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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: chalu2 who wrote (4251)	8/24/1999 1:20:00 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You forgot the exception to all these hypotheticals when the action damages the self-esteem of the individual. You see self-esteem is to be considered above all other rights, responsibilities, and obligations, legal or moral. We can't have people walking around sulking because they couldn't get what they wanted.

To: chalu2 who wrote (4251)	8/24/1999 1:28:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Hell of lot of religious conservative assumptions here dontcha think? Try these: Assume that their is no soul just a brain and central nervous system. Assume that without a developed central nervous system there can be no self awareness Assume that simply living human tissue does not constitute a human being any more than a transplanted organ. [or a bag of fingernail clippings for that matter] Under these assumptions wouldn't it be foolish to try and tell a woman what to do with living tissue inside her own body?............You see this works both ways depending on who makes the assumptions....... Perhaps it best that we allow each woman to make her own assumptions.......In the land of the free. pez

To: chalu2 who wrote (4251)	8/24/1999 3:27:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769670

The problem is that preservation of this "life" also creates a victim of the situation - that is the woman that is forced to give birth. If this were a victimless situation, I would agree with your post. And BTW, on McCain again... I forgot to mention that imo he does not "practice what he preaches" when it comes to adoption - UNLESS the child he chose to adopt is a crack baby, a fetal alcohol syndrome child, down syndrome, etc. If he chose to adopt a white healthy child, then he is only participating in the positive side of the adoption debate, anybody can do that. Otoh if McCain's teenage daughter was forced to give birth and give a child up for adoption, or again if he chose to adopt a difficult child, then that would be saying something. If anybody has any examples of these conservatives' daughters having children in their teens and either keeping the child or giving it up for adoption, can you post? The only example I can think of where a decision had to be made with regards to an unwanted pregnancy in this situation was Bob Barr's ex-wife... and we all know what his decision was in that case. Also if any of these conservatives have adopted a down syndrome or fetal alcohol syndrome child, etc. I'd like to know.

To: chalu2 who wrote (4251)	8/24/1999 7:06:00 PM
From: Machaon	Respond to of 769670

<< C. Assume that if there is an error to be made, it should be made in favor of preserving life. >> Yes, but what kind of life? Do we preserve all sperms or eggs? You can't look at a sperm hot footing it towards the love of his life, and not think the sperm does not represent life. Do we have mandatory sperm counts to make sure that someone isn't committing spermacide? Sounds silly but "preserving life" is almost as vague as the "Thou shalt not kill" in the ten commandments. << Shouldn't this lead us to restrict abortions except in extreme cases. >> Who is "us"? Abortion is a terrible choice for a woman to have to make. Many people are repulsed by the idea, including myself, as strange as that might seem. But, a woman's right to privacy and to motherhood must never be put into the hands of the political machine. Once the conservative zealots get control over individual rights, they will march us down a slippery slope towards excesses against individual freedoms. Look how the conservative congressmen acted during Clinton's impeachment hearing. They abused their majority power by rushing to impeach President Clinton without a fair hearing. There were no witnesses called. They did not even layout the specific charges against Clinton. They took the Grand Jury report as fact. Do we want to trust these same extremists with the power to decide when a woman should have a child? What individual freedoms would they go after next?