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: SecularBull who wrote (364258)	2/27/2003 1:04:13 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

you challenged me to make a logical argument, you thought I couldn't do it... and I did. Her choice was on the front side, and that choice should have consequences for her and not for an innocent third party. It is you who are not speaking logically here. Go back to my post about parent and child#1 and parent and child#2, and tell me how you can logically defend forcing a woman to provide life support for a fetus that is not required for a living child, legally. I am not interested in emotional arguements about what somebody should have done or choices they made, forget that. Just the issue of why one "child" gets to infringe on the rights of an adult and the other does not.

To: SecularBull who wrote (364258)	2/27/2003 1:04:16 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

you challenged me to make a logical argument, you thought I couldn't do it... and I did. Her choice was on the front side, and that choice should have consequences for her and not for an innocent third party. It is you who are not speaking logically here. Go back to my post about parent and child#1 and parent and child#2, and tell me how you can logically defend forcing a woman to provide life support for a fetus that is not required for a living child, legally. I am not interested in emotional arguements about what somebody should have done or choices they made, forget that. Just the issue of why one "child" gets to infringe on the rights of an adult and the other does not. Assume the mother is the same for both children if you want. I think you can see that legally there is an issue here and everybody on both sides of the argument knows it if you ask me.