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 (7134)	3/2/2001 1:52:06 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

(None of this is meant to negate your assertions about conception or new life, or babies. We'll never achieve agreement there. I'd have to talk about seeds and oaks, and plans and bridges, and drag out hunger and AIDS and abuse. You'd you'd have to talk about souls, and sanctity, and killing babies.) I don't think I ever mentioned souls is this discussion, and I don't remember using the term sanctity in this context. Banning MAP isn't going to save unwanted "babies," it is just going to mean that embryos will be left to ripen and develop further. I don't think we have discussed banning MAP. If I was to push to ban it I would only do so after abortion was outlawed. My post was not a response that it should be banned but rather a discription of why the idea failed to exite me or draw my support. I think in many cases where a woman would consider using MAP she would also be likely to have an abortion if the MAP is unavailable and she becomes pregnant but not in all cases. Tim