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: Johannes Pilch who wrote (124819)	1/31/2001 10:06:34 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

It will take no great perceptiveness to understand why a mother’s role in the murder of her unborn child is not as severe (though it is quite severe) as either the role of the abortionist who murders children for profit, or that of a murderer who murders simply for sadistic thrill. Every reasonable person will understand the difference, and the rest will be by definition, “choicers.” Are you kidding? The murder of anyone by a member of their own family (especially the murder of a child by a mother) is usually considered more heinous and horrific than a murder by a stranger for money. Ask anyone. Consider, for example, the case of the lady who drowned her two young boys by driving the car into a lake some years back. (I think this happened in SC or GA - somewhere in the south. The mother claimed the car was stolen with the boys inside at first.) Compare that case to the murder of a Mafia informer by a paid hitman. Which is the more heinous murder? Most people would say the murder of the young boys by their mother. Would you disagree?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (124819)	1/31/2001 10:20:36 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Surgical abortions are just the tip of the iceberg and PBA's are just a snowball. The iceberg is the vast number of abortions triggered by things like birth control pills, IUD's, and morning after pills. Yet prolifers talk about the snowball while largely ignoring the iceberg. They do not, and I have shown you repeatedly that they do not. No, you've made an assertion which is unconvincing. I believe that the vast majority of people who call themselves prolife are unaware that a real application of prolife policy into law would outlaw such things as the use of birth control pills and IUD's for birth control and the morning after pill for rape victims. I know of some people who call themselves prolife who have employed such things in their own life unawares. And if we could take a poll of prolife folks on this thread, I'd expect to find that some of them are currently using the pill or IUD's for birth control. There is a real reticience on the part those prolife folks "in the know" like yourself to inform the public, including the prolife public, on the full implications of prolife positions.