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: Jacques Chitte who wrote (18015)	5/3/2000 12:07:00 AM
From: haqihana	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

LRR, I have to give science it's due. They, at least, do admit faulty theories and go on the the next one. Being an astronomer must be a fun occupation. I have meant to, but never did, buy a decent telescope where I could spend some time marveling at the complexity of the universe, and the beauty of the stars. To get paid for that, is an extra bonus, IMO. She never did, to my knowledge, deny that she believed in abortion for convenience, or PBAs, during this particular extended discussion. That could have made a big difference in the tone of the discussion. I can understand an abortion when the mother's life is threatened, and can understand why a woman would not want to deliver a baby resulting from rape, or incest. Other than these unsavory possibilities, I believe that, if a woman does not want to have a baby, she should choose one of the many contraceptive measures available, and should also insist that the male use every bit of protection available to him. In consentual sex, I hold the male as responsible as the female for using protection. It does take "two to tango". I don't accept ignorance as an excuse though. Far too much publicity about contraception has been put before the public for anyone to use such a lame excuse. If the man complains that it affects his pleasure, a woman should make it clear that if he wants any "pleasure" at all, he has to get it the safe way. The thing that really got me in one the abortion issue, elsewhere, other than my beliefs as stated above, was when some feminine gladiator said she would surely get an abortion because it would endanger her chances to move up to a more profitable position on the corporate ladder. That, to me, was one of the sorriest reasons for an abortion I have ever heard. I didn't know there were human beings that were that shallow. Your $.02 are always welcome in my camp, and you can even share my fire. ~H~

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (18015)	5/3/2000 1:29:00 AM
From: Dayuhan	Respond to of 769667

I understand what you say here, I think. Personally, I am not comfortable with any position in the abortion debate. I am not comfortable with the idea of discarding what would become human. I am not comfortable with the idea of the State telling a woman what she can and cannot do with her uterus. I am definitely not comfortable with using parenthood as punishment for unwise sexual conduct, or using the threat of parenthood as a device to prevent people from having sex. I am not comfortable with the level of judgement that is applied to women with unwanted pregnancies, especially when it is applied by men. I support legal abortion through the first trimester; I'm not comfortable with that position either, but it seems to me to be the least of the possible evils. This position also stems in large part from living in and observing a society where all abortion is illegal, and seeing how little things change.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (18015)	5/3/2000 10:19:00 AM
From: PROLIFE	Respond to of 769667

Abortion-for-convenience is about as unlikely as amputation-for-convenience. The very term misleads; only pro-lifers applaud it because it assists in making abortion seem somehow frivolous; a lark. LRR, I do not take any abortion lightly.(and I know you are not saying I am). I think if as a scientist you would research the issue, you will be shocked at the number of abortions that ARE for convenience. I believe you would be shocked to find the overwhelming majority ARE done for convenience. I believe you would find that women have gone back for their second, third, and fourth abortions, using abortion as birth control. And about those unwanted pregnancies? What do you think of little things such as this: TIME Magazine claimed there were at least 6 million unwanted pregnancies in the U.S. each year. TIME, Feb. 26, 1990, p. 94 In that year there were 4 million births, about 1.6 million abortions, plus about 400,000 miscarriages. According to TIME?s claim, every pregnancy that year was unwanted. Can you see how easily we could fall into thinking that we are actually doing anyone a favor by getting rid of all those ""unwanted"" pregnancies. If you had read that in Time, would you have believed it? that it is unlikely to soon become as trivial as a root canal. Praise God the figures have gone down, but at still over ONE MILLION per year, at what figure does "trivial" actually kick in?