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: J_F_Shepard who wrote (170248)	8/11/2001 12:12:44 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

The overwhelming majority of abortions ARE done for birth control. Not for rape. Not for incest. Not for health. choice....equals abortion....equals birth control....and that is the truth. <<<<<<Source: Chicago Sun-Times; March 25, 2001 The Abortion Movement Reveals Its True Colors by Betsy Hart The right-to-life movement seems to be the most vilified movement in our popular culture today. But over and over again I'm struck by the same thing: The cause of the pro-life activists is profoundly unique: There is no personal gain for those involved. The concern is for others, including those who cannot speak or care for themselves. Nowhere is this contrast in motivation greater than between the pro-life movement and its pro-choice counterpart. The differences in motivation may say just as much about the two as the differences in the policy debate involved. The pro-life community consistently demonstrates its love for both the unborn and their moms, which is why there are some 3,000 crisis pregnancy centers in the United States, not one of which takes a dime from the women they help with their unexpected pregnancies. These centers provide whatever help they can, including emotional support like helping tell families, boyfriends or husbands about the pregnancy (even, as is often the case, with counseling after an abortion). Their help can include medical expenses, clothing, adoption services if that's a choice, often even jobs and housing. Anything the expectant mother needs to truly have a choice about her own and her baby's future. This costs a lot of money, and it's privately raised from loving supporters who want to help women and their unborn children. In contrast, almost 1.4 million abortions are performed in the United States each year, for which an average fee of around $300 is routinely charged the "customer." Often, that customer is the government. In California and New York, Medicaid pays for up to half of all abortions, while they don't pay for the services of crisis pregnancy centers. This surely gives poor women a one-sided incentive toward the "choice" of abortion. In any case, the high volume and quick turnover ensures a profitable business, the name of the game for the abortion industry. I can't help but wonder: If abortion activists really care about the women involved, why don't they volunteer services and facilities to all of them, as the pro-life folks do? Why not at least "help" the poorest women, instead of demanding that taxpayers fund their abortions? The answer speaks volumes about their motives. So does the abortion activists' campaign of disinformation. Nowhere was this revealed more than in the debate over partial-birth abortion, the gruesome procedure in which a very likely viable infant is delivered feet first, but its skull crushed and brain removed before it technically enters the world. Leaders in the abortion- rights movement, rightly afraid that Americans would recoil from all abortion when they found out about the horrific act, variously told us that the procedure is rarely performed; the baby feels nothing, because it is killed by the anesthesia delivered to the mother, and it is done only when medically necessary. The executive director of the National Abortion Federation finally debunked the first myth, and the American College of Anesthesiologists quickly corrected the second. When it came to the third, the generally pro-choice American Medical Association said simply that the procedure "is never medically necessary." To me the most hideous contrast between the movements is when it comes to the issue of rights. Fighting for the legitimate rights of oneself or others is a noble act. But while the pro-life activists fight for the lives and rights of both mother and child, the abortion activists fight for a perversion of rights in claiming that one innocent life must die for another. Sure, there may well be pro-life activists pursuing some selfish end. There are a few who call themselves part of the movement but aren't at all, in that they would even take the life of another to pursue their purposes. (They are routinely and roundly condemned by the legitimate pro-life movement.) Conversely, there may be good- hearted pro-choice activists who really, but wrongly, believe they are helping women. Still, I see the heart of each movement consistently revealed in its work. And it's clear to me that the pro-life movement as a whole is selfless, caring only about life and others, while the abortion- rights movement cares only about self. So I guess it's little wonder, really, that today elite culture denigrates the former while it champions the latter.>>>>>>

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (170248)	8/11/2001 1:33:13 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769669

Why do you find sex-selection reprehensible or repugnant? If the fetus has no rights, and is not really a human being, why do you care whether the mother chooses a particular gender?