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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (6984)	3/1/2001 10:16:55 AM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 82486

"Remember that MAP is not abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant, or it wouldn't work." Hi YYB. I find this statement to be very curious. First if the woman were not pregnant then there would be no need to take a pill to kill the conceived child. But surely you are talking about implantation. That reminds me of a line from Clapton's, I Shot The Sheriff, "Kill it before it grows". The only problem with that, is something must first be alive before it can be killed. The fact is that, from the moment of conception, a new entity has come into existence. It is not the woman, and it is not the man. Each parent is responsible for contributing only half of the required 46 chromosomes that make this new person, a genetically unique, and distinct, individual person. To say that the killing of this individual by preventing them from implanting in the mothers womb, is not an abortion, because the woman is not pregnant is straining at a gnat, while swallowing a Camel. "This is why French geneticist Jermoe L. LeJeune, while testifying before a Senate Subcommittee, asserted: "To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion. The human nature of the human being from conception to old age is not a metaphysical contention, it is plain experimental evidence."" Have a good day Greg

To: YlangYlangBreeze who wrote (6984)	3/1/2001 10:20:14 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

So, how about a single move that could reduce abortions by 50% in one fell swoop? A report at the NARAL site cites a 1992 source as saying that over the counter availability of "Emergency Contraceptive" or "Morning After" pills could do just that. Heck even if it was 5% percent I'd be in favor of it. Remember that MAP is not abortion because the woman is not yet pregnant, or it wouldn't work. By the technical definition of pregnancy the woman might not be pregnant. However I can't think of any moral signifigance to implantation. Conception is when a new life form starts. I understand that the "morning after pill" sometimes works by preventing ovulation rather then by preventing implantation but I would think that this would be 50% or less of the cases that it is used. Tim