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: E. T. who wrote (186030)	9/24/2001 1:07:20 PM
From: Thomas A Watson	Respond to of 769670

you say "yet you say there is no justification for prochoice. " What is prochoice to you? What choice, what action do you seek justification for. Who is doing the action and who is the innocent victim of the choice. Does this choice a clear direct target that becomes the victim. If this choice is made does with 100% certainty a human life end. tom watson tosiwmee

To: E. T. who wrote (186030)	9/24/2001 1:42:14 PM
From: Srexley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

"yet you say there is no justification for prochoice" The moniker "Pro-choice" indicates that it is ok to choose to kill an unborn child. If one is confronted with that "choice" they must wrestle with the implications and decide whether the killing of their unborn child is "justified". I cannot justify it myself, so I would not choose to abort my unborn child. So the key in my mind is how one can "justify" abortion internally because I do not think it can be publicly justified without dodging the issue and making invalid comparisons as you have done. It is legal, but it is a decision that has huge moral implications that last a lifetime. The groups that publicly support it use non-sensicle arguments like: 1) men have no grounds to voice an opinion 2) it strictly has to do with a woman's choice (as if there is no baby being aborted) 3) life does not start until after the baby leaves the womb You get the idea. Try to support it logically without skirting the issue, and then see how you feel about it. It is a harder "choice" to make when broken down to it's basic element, which is unborn humans have no right to live. Kind of creepy, isn't it?