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: PROLIFE who wrote (504880)	12/6/2003 11:05:08 AM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Are you anti-death? I'd remind you that death is a part of life. Think of what life would be like without it. Your God gave us term limits for a reason! Would you question your God?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (504880)	12/6/2003 1:24:04 PM
From: Machaon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

You wrote:<font color=blue>"there is no such thing as pro choice. your choice is death, so the term is pro-abortion=pro-death."<font color=black> You can say the same thing about eating chicken. Instead of being pro-chicken, someone is actually pro-death, because the chicken must die before we can eat it. Please correct me if you do things differently. <g> Yes, of course, abortion results in the death of the fetus or embryo. Just the same as sex results in the death of millions of sperms and many eggs. But....... you are deliberately dodging the issue. You refuse to address the question of rape. Why? Is it because if you came out and said that a woman has to carry a monster's baby, you would look bad to others? I'll repeat my previous question, for which you were too big of a coward to respond. You wrote:<font color=blue>"Notwithstanding that you are talking about a very very rare instance ..."<font color=black> What is your point about the rarity of a pregnancy caused by rape? If it is very, very rare, would that mean that the woman should have the right not to carry a monster's baby? You wrote:<font color=blue>"your final solution would be to pit not woman against rapist, but rather you wish to pit mother against child."<font color=black> One of the greatest joys that a couple can experience, is having a child who inherited half of it's genes from the mother and the other half from the father. A woman carries the baby to birth, knowing that the child will be a result of the love between her and her husband. You are saying that you want to force a woman to bear a child with half of it's genes from the mother, and the other half of the genes from a monster. That is cruelty beyond compare. You've got to be deranged to want to torture a rape victim like that. If the pregnancy is caught quickly, before anything human really forms, then it is a sample matter to give the woman the choice between bearing a child, out of love, or out of violent rape. You wrote:<font color=blue>"No doubt, a rape is a horrible act of violence against the victim....so your answer is to create another violent act in which the victim is involved."<font color=black> There is no victim when the abortion is done early.