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: Machaon who wrote (77919)	11/16/2000 12:57:07 PM
From: Rambi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 769667

Robert, Before I sprang to your defense, I looked at your profile, and now am wondering if you are joshin' us Texans about your education and occupation? Bustamante, Texas had a population of about 25 people in 1991 and the Dallas Medical College was bought out in the early 1900s.

To: Machaon who wrote (77919)	11/16/2000 2:06:52 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

No doubt many of the babies that are PBA’d each year are ill. I nevertheless think the evidence shows most PBA’s are performed on babies that would live if delivered by C-section. I think poor young girls who deny their pregnancies until denial is no longer possible account for a remarkable number of the PBAs. And of course we are all aware of Ron Fitzsimmons’s testimony. Fitzsimmons was executive director of the National Coalition of Abortion Providers, and he claimed Partial-Birth Abortions are performed about 3,000 to 5,000 times a year or more, and that the majority of them are performed on healthy babies. Even the developer of the PBA technique claimed he used it over a thousand times, primarily on healthy children. Several other prominent abortionists are on record having admitted the same thing. The problem with outlawing Partial Birth Abortion only in cases where “the mother's health or life” is at stake, is that we must limit the definition of the terms “health” and “life” to physical health and life. Up to now abortion advocates have fought limiting these terms, ostensibly to allow them a great deal of wiggle room in cases where they want to abort children simply for social reasons (which is the primary reason why people kill their children). The problem with outlawing Partial Birth Abortion only in cases where “the baby is doomed or significantly deformed” is that according to The Physicians' Ad Hoc Coalition for Truth (a group of physicians in obstetrics), the procedure is simply unnecessary. Generally speaking, we can safely deliver children without killing them in the womb. If the child is truly doomed then PBA is a non-issue. If the child is severely deformed such that he will die after delivery, then PBA is a non-issue here also. We may deliver the child and eliminate his suffering using medicine as he dies, but we should not seek to do it harm. One great problem is, we are not in position to have certainty that a child’s deformity means his death. Many children are severely deformed and with our help thrive. If they cannot thrive even with our help, then they die. I think it is a dangerous thing to put ourselves in position to execute people we think should die, subjectively judging their quality of life. None of us is a suitable judge of quality. We are not God. Deformed people, even severely deformed people, have a valid place in our culture. They keep us human. Without them, the vector of perfection points to the next least “perfect” group of people, depending upon one’s definition of perfection. May God bless all the deformed and imperfect people of this miserable world. Were it not for them, we would have sank into a purer barbarity quite a long time ago. Perhaps if we think government has no business restricting abortion and that the unborn child is non-human, we should despise government infringement on a woman’s right to choose abortion-- period. And if the unborn child is not a human we should accept that it has no rights and that it can be killed on pure whim, just as the law effectively allows currently. The question is, on what logically compelling basis can anyone proscribe the murder of a child one second after it exits the birth canal? I see none, and so it seems logically imperative that we have the right to kill children even after they are born.