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: Jerrel Peters who wrote (391918)	4/14/2003 2:27:58 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (5) \| Respond to of 769670

well Jerrel, all I can tell you is that the big coastal states are mostly all pro-choice. So as long as we pay the bills its our way or the highway for the pro-life crowd. If iowa wants to become the 7th largest GDP in the world, and they can do it with a bible-thumping mentality which penalizes working women, then go for it. I doubt it though and I think the leaders of the republican party know it.

To: Jerrel Peters who wrote (391918)	4/14/2003 2:32:06 PM
From: Rock_nj	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Beyond that no person should be able to dismember a live human. What is your position on war then? Did you support the dismemberment of Iraqis recently? Is killing sometimes justified, like in the case of war? I'm just wondering if there really is a principle at work here. It seems to me that "pro-lifers" should be against killing in any circumstance. I've always been troubled by the fact that mankind thinks killing is OK when it's done in the name of war. I'm especially troubled by the fact that "pro-life" people are so upset at the prospect of killing unborn babies, but don't take a position against killing in wars. I wish at least once in my lifetime, we could stop a war and needless killing.