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: miraje who wrote (65547)	2/4/2000 12:37:00 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 67261

PBA is a red herring thrown out by pro lifers. It is a rarely used procedure and usually done under dire life threatening circumstances. Want to know how ignorant that statement is? Or do you choose to to hear-see no evil? NEW YORK (AP) - A prominent supporter of abortion rights says he ``lied through my teeth' when he said that so-called partial-birth abortions were performed rarely, and only to save the mother's life or to abort malformed fetuses. Ron Fitzsimmons, executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers in Alexandria, Va., a coalition of 200 independently owned clinics, made the admission in an article to be published March 3 in Medical News, an American Medical Association publication. The article was quoted in Wednesday 's New York Times. Fitzsimmons, who had insisted the procedure was rare in a November 1995 interview on the ABC show ``Nightline,' now says abortion opponents are right when they say the procedure, intact dilation and evacuation, is common. He said that in the vast majority of cases, the procedure is formed on a healthy mother who is five months pregnant with a healthy fetus. ``The abortion rights folks know it, the anti-abortion folks know it, and so, probably, does everyone else,' he said. He said he had lied because he feared the truth would damage the cause of abortion rights, but now he is convinced that the debate on the issue must be based on the truth. The procedure involves extracting a fetus through the birth canal, feet first, and then suctioning out the brain. Congress passed a law to ban the procedure, which opponents say borders on infanticide, but President Clinton vetoed the law and Congress failed to override the veto. In explaining his veto, Clinton said the procedure was used on ``a few hundred women every year' whose fetuses are ``about to be born with terrible deformities.' Fitzsimmons' article is not the first to suggest that abortion rights supporters had understated the frequency of the procedure. A report in The Record of Hackensack, N.J., last September sparked controversy when it reported that doctors at just one clinic in suburban Englewood estimated using the controversial procedure in about half of the 3,000 abortions they perform each year on women in their 20th to 24th weeks of pregnancy. A normal pregnancy is about 40 weeks. The Record report bolstered claims by abortionist opponents that the procedure is used by women who simply make a late decision to terminate their pregnancy, without compelling medical reasons. MORE ANTI LIFE LIES TO KEEP THAT MONEY FILLING THE COFFERS OF THE AMERICAN KILLING FIELDS!!!!!

To: miraje who wrote (65547)	2/4/2000 1:10:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>A fetus in the undeveloped state that you described is not a vegetable or a human being. It is a potential human being.< You may believe this, but you merely prove how religion can sneak up on even an atheist/libertarian. You see, you claim out of thin air that the foetus is neither vegetable nor human, and yet do not nor cannot factually define either. All this faith of yours will have to be shoved down the throats of a lot of people if you want it to stick. The best you can do here is to say that a human organism's expendability is in direct correlation to its development. And, of course, you will be saying nothing that is anything better than what you have already said. >Using terms such as "vegetable" or "bag of cells" is as disingenuous as pro lifers calling a fertilized egg a "baby".< More religion, as certainly your definition has no more factual authority than those who differ with you. So then by what logical means can you define developing human offspring as neither human nor vegetable? On the basis of how it looks to the human eye, or how loud it screams, or whether it can "think" or is "self-aware?" You have then sanctioned the murder of millions now protected by law. >I don't post much and hesitate to wade in on this issue, but I have to throw in my 2 cents. I am a libertarian and an atheist and view this issue as a matter of ones personal beliefs.< This is one view, and only one view, and a religious one at that. In a nutshell you say "this is all a matter of faith." Others view it as a matter of self-preservation (and they have the philosophical edge over you), a matter of life and death. Some of them think those who think as you do are serious threats that perhaps should one day be eliminated. So you see, it may not do to shrug off the thing as simply "a matter of one's personal beliefs." >With such a large number of people who view abortion as murder, I don't think that tax dollars should be used to fund the procedure. At the same time, I believe that abortion should be legal for those women who wish to undergo it, as long as the fetus is not viable or conscious or aware as you stated above.< Here you basically destroyed clear thinking by inserting nitwittery. I am with you that tax dollars should not be used to fund abortion. And even believing as I do about abortion, I am with you that women should be allowed to abort. But I cannot logically follow you into the following silliness-- ...as long as the fetus is not viable or conscious or aware.... What is this? And who decides when an unborn child is any of these? And when they decide, by what compelling principle of reason can they be expected not to apply these definitions to anyone not now protected by law? When you put this exception clause in your "atheist/libertarian" solution, you merely act like a religious/non-libertarian. And when one thinks of the implications of your exclusions, one may think it comes from a serious religious fundie. If you will allow abortion, then do be man enough to allow it. >PBA is a red herring thrown out by pro lifers. It is a rarely used procedure and usually done under dire life threatening circumstances. More faith, and irrelevant faith to boot. You see, it is important to discuss PBA because it flows from the principle that now allows general abortion. We speak on principles here, James-- not herrings. PBA is logical if one accepts abortion philosophy. And if PBA is logical, then why not Full Birth Abortion (FBA)? That is the point. >What really gets me is the religious fundies antipathy towards birth control and sex education. With adequate instruction in and access to both, the number of unwanted births and abortions would decrease dramatically.< What gets me is how rabid atheist/libertarian religious fundies seek to force their indoctrination programs of birth control, "sex education" and, if need be, abortion, on the children of others.

To: miraje who wrote (65547)	2/4/2000 8:15:00 PM
From: pezz	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<<A fetus in the undeveloped state that you described is not a vegetable or a human being. It is a potential human being. Using terms such as "vegetable" or "bag of cells" is as disingenuous as pro lifers calling a fertilized egg a "baby">> Well for sure I agree with this . I use the term "a bag of cells" Just to see if they can see the absurdity of their continually calling a fetus a "child".They don't.. So I will continue to do so. . . Of course the fetus is a potential human being So what? A gleam in my eye is a potential human being. It isn't one! Thats the issue. << With such a large number of people who view abortion as murder, I don't think that tax dollars should be used to fund the procedure.>> I believe that there are more supporters of Roe vs Wade than opposition . It would be a dangerous precedent IMO to allow a vocal minority to intimidate the government from funding a legal medical procedure . Government spending never satisfies anyone. We don't permit others to limit what our government spends our money on . Why start now with the anti abortion people?

To: miraje who wrote (65547)	2/6/2000 4:53:00 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< What really gets me is the religious fundies antipathy towards birth control and sex education. >> The religious fundies want everyone to follow their examples. Since their religious leaders are closer to God than the rest of us, it is important that we listen ONLY to what they say, and do ONLY what they do. From the Miami Herald, Feb 2, 2000: "Father Dennis Rausch runs the Catholic Charities HIV/AIDS ministry in South Florida, but it still took him more than five years to face his own fears and openly admit that he had AIDS. Rausch is one of an estimated several hundred priests nationwide with the disease, an estimate made in a recent story in the Kansas City Star after surveying 3,000 priests nationwide. ... If the estimate is accurate, the rate of AIDS in the priesthood would be about three to four times as high as in the general population ..."