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 : The Left Wing Porch -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (1207)	12/16/2000 2:51:04 PM
From: Don Pueblo	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 6089

OK, good!! Let's see if we can define our parameters here. I, being non-female, (just checked and verified) feel that I am not in a position (no pun intended) to make a judgement as to the legality or illegality of abortion. As a practical matter, it seems nonsensical to make it illegal when a woman will get one even if they are not legal. Nobody asked me about my stance on this, but that's my stance. I totally understand the point of view taken by the people that think abortion should be illegal. I understand that point of view. You have hit upon the actual truth of this entire problem, I believe. It IS a religious question. That is exactly what it is! This "Dr. Id" humanoid has the same problem with this as Jerry Falwell. They both are looking at it like we are all little pieces of steak. Only problem is...we aren't! <G>

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (1207)	12/16/2000 2:54:15 PM
From: bonnuss_in_austin	Respond to of 6089

Once again, Joelle, exquisite. << have a feeling the real deal here is religious, and about keeping women down>> Manipulation from within. Absolutely so insightful ... thank you for such articulation ... I'm often so blinded by raw emotion ... RAGE ... I find it difficult to express in ways that are not categorical generalizations. Damn ... gotta get up the MailBoxes R Us IMMEDIATELY ... see you folks later ... Best, 'b-i-a' ###

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (1207)	12/17/2000 10:49:10 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 6089

I'm not debating choice on this thread. That's a non negotiable to me. I am open to discussing policy. You are not debating choice you are instead assuming it and condemning and insulting those who disagree, and then objecting to their responses as "debateing choice on this thread" because they do not see things as you do. If you don't want to debate abortion then fine, I wasn't really looking for this debate here either but if you condemn people who are pro-life for being pro-life then you are starting the debate. You seem to want the only debating tactic against your condemnations to have to follow the pattern "assume you are 100% wrong, now justify how you can hold your position." If that would help me understand how can they justify imposing their will on my body, I want to know all about them. I have a feeling the real deal here is religious, and about keeping women down. Have they never been in a difficult situation? Even if they have, have they no empathy? The deprivation of choice seems very intrusive and punitive. I would say that on the average they are more religious then the average person. However not all of them are very religious. Most of them have been in difficult situations because most people have been in difficult situations. I imagine only a minority of them have been in very difficult situations but then only a minority of pro-choice people found themselves in the same predicament. They justify imposing their will on your body because they believe there is the body of more then one person involved. You could probably find some of them that think women should be kept down and/or want to keep women down themselves, but the percentage would be so small that its not worth talking about. Any group of millions of people will have some really horrible examples. Do you think we should form our opinion of a whole group from the worst of its members? If so all large groups of any kind should be detested because the worst of any sufficiently large group is really bad. Personally I would not want to go around life with so much hatred. I would say they do indeed have empathy. Most of them are pro-life because of the empathy for the unborn child. You would be surprised by how many of them have empathy for the mother as well. Not allowing abortion would be intrusive (but not punitive, it would not be done to punish), but so is killing the child. Tim