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 : To be a Liberal,you have to believe that..... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (2515)	9/15/1999 7:53:00 PM
From: Null Dog Ago	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6418

Bill, on this they will remain unfalteringly wrong. They don't want to hear our take on this, they just want to tell us we are the ones who are wrong. That's why I hate these discussions.

To: Bill who wrote (2515)	9/15/1999 8:01:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 6418

I disagree with your life support analogy because that leaves off the "donor" aspect which is key to my point. Do we force donors of body parts or no. If no then we are violating the rights of the mother by forcing her to donate. Otoh we have the fetus, which you claim has rights to life support. OK lets just forget the obvious issues of whether a fetus is a life but in either case it is a stretch to say a womans body is life support in the same way that an IV tube or respirator supports life... in fact I think the medical terminology for life support is "artificial" life support and we already provide it to babies to the extent that it is beneficial (pre-mies, crack babies and the like). I don't believe it would hold up legally to use an analogy of a human body to a respirator, etc.