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: Nadine Carroll who wrote (124422)	1/30/2001 3:12:27 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

A woman who chooses an abortion and a doctor who performs it are doing the exact same act. Wrong, a woman who chooses an abortion usually has to open her legs to let the murderer in, and she usually has to undergo quite a bit of physical discomfort. The murderer does not have to undergo any of this. He merely needs assault the innocent child and take his bloody cash. If I hire you to kill someone, the law will not acquit me just because I didn't pull the trigger. As I have just described, where the woman is concerned the circumstances of abortion are quite a bit different than those of a common hit job; and I am not surprised to find you unwilling to accept this since it militates against your erroneous view. The law may easily account for these differences. You are trying to soft-pedal the results of your logic because you are not comfortable with the cruelty to women that it entails. False. I am following where the logic leads, a thing you are apparently unable or unwilling to do. And the abortion providers make an easier target than the women who seek their services. Abortionists are not merely “an easier target.” They are practically the only target since they literally murder the unborn children. If I say that a nine-month fetus has rights -- and I do -- it does not mean that I must automatically extend the same rights to a fertilized ovum. The law gives more rights to 18 year olds than 15 year olds, more rights to 10 year olds than new born infants, and more rights to 9 month fetuses than fertilized eggs. I can live with that. (sigh) The law extends the same human rights to a neonate as to a ninety-year old. You confuse rights with privilege. As for Judaism allowing abortions to save the mother's sanity, I learned it long ago but I don't have the reference. Riiight. Just as I surmised. The ruling about saving a woman's sanity is an extension of the basic ruling and has been traditionally used to allow a woman to abort a severely handicapped or non-viable fetus rather than making her bear it to term. Well, until I literally see where “Judaism” accepts murdering unborn children to protect a woman’s sanity (really now!), I will not believe it, as you have already proven here several times that you are an unsuitable authority on such matters. You need support for your claims, madam. Too many “choicers” speak out of their arses with no support whatever, and then murder children on such non-evidence, even claiming themselves justified to force decent citizens to fund their murders with tax dollars. If "choicers" just have to murder children, then they at a minimum should have the decency to murder them with their own dang money. But they do not even have that much decency. As for your definition of science! May I suggest going to an encyclopedia and looking up "scientific method"? And may I suggest you not merely go to the encyclopedia and look up the "scientific method," but also that you read and try understanding it.