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: Bald Eagle who wrote (492680)	11/14/2003 3:20:07 PM
From: laura_bush	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Out of the picture on the abortion ban By Ellen Goodman, 11/13/2003 MAYBE THIS picture isn't worth a thousand words. That honor probably belongs to the flight deck portrait of the president under the sign ''Mission Accomplished.'' Maybe the presidential photo op now flying around the Internet and soon to be available on your local T-shirt is only worth 750 words. The picture shows the president surrounded by an all-male chorus line of legislators as he signs the first ban on an abortion procedure. It's a single-sex class photo of men making laws governing something they will never have: a womb. This was not just a strategic misstep, a rare Karl Rove lapse. It perfectly reflected the truth of the so-called partial-birth abortion law. What's wrong with this picture? The legislators had indeed erased women. They used the law as if it were Photoshop software, to crop out real women with real problems. Indeed, just days after the shutter snapped, three separate courts ordered a temporary halt to the ban on these very grounds: It doesn't have any exemption for the health of a women. ... It's a deliberate, willful first strike at some of the most vulnerable women, those who need medical help the most." Full article: search.boston.com

To: Bald Eagle who wrote (492680)	11/14/2003 4:55:19 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Well I don't think all of these questions are stupid, though I would not exactly say the same thing regarding their author. One might answer them like this: 1. Would you have pregnant women be forced, by law, to bear children they didn't want? Like cattle? Like property? He claims by implication that merely because the child resides inside its mother and is unwanted, it is not human. It is objectively apparent that he is wrong. The genetic existence of humanity is as mathematical as 0 and 1. The developing human fetus is not a tomato. Once he accepts this plain "in your face" fact, he will be able to answer his own question. It is not moral for stronger humans to murder weaker, more dependant humans simply for the sake of convenience. 2. And then require them to raise these children and be responsible for them for the next 18 years? Here he claims by implication that merely because the child resides inside its mother and is unwanted, it is not the woman's offspring. Once again, it is objectively apparent that he is wrong. The genetic existence of a woman's offspring is as mathematical as 0 and 1. The developing human fetus is not the offspring of just anyone. It is the offspring of exactly one man and exactly one woman, both of whom are obliged to allow it to continue its course in nature unharmed. It is not moral for parents to murder their offspring simply for the sake of convenience. 3. Is your contention that a fetus owns the mother for the next 18 years as soon as it's conceived? Here we see he has seized upon the arbitrary figure of "18 years" as a "gospel" figure quite likely because he has not yet learned to think for himself about the facts that lay all around him. He has then projected this self-ignorance upon PROLIFE, apparently thinking Prolife's position necessarily requires one to be as ignorant as he. No one rightly "owns" anyone in nature, but in nature we are obligated to ourselves and to our children by extension - unless one thinks human society ought to be based upon the same social principle employed by sharks, turtles and frogs. Is a sperm worth 1/2 a fetus? He essentially is asking if 2 sperm cells = 1 fetus. I have always maintained that those who support the slaughter of innocent children do so because of self-ignorance, but this question makes me think it happens because of mental retardation. Is an egg? See above Is conception a holy event for you? It is the point in nature where human logic first takes form in matter - becoming human BIOlogic. That may be holy for some. It is human nature for all. Is the conception of a monkey close to being holy? It is the point in nature where monkey logic first takes form in matter - becoming monkey BIOlogic. That may be holy for some. It is monkey nature for all. Closer than the conception of a fish? It is the point in nature where fish logic first takes form in matter - becoming fish BIOlogic. That may be holy for some. It is fish nature for all. ------ Pretty easy to deal with twits...