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 who wrote (566526)	4/18/2004 6:21:25 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Respond to of 769670

It's okay to kill innocent six year olds if iyo you have a "right" that allowing them to live might infringe? The moral weight of killing the six-year-old here presses upon those who, in effect, use six-year-olds as shields to deny the rights of others rather than freely granting due rights without destruction. It is not the aim of the United States to harm anyone. America merely wished to verify WMD and had a right to such verification, since the cessation of hostilities in GWI was predicated upon this roundly accepted right. Since Iraq refused to grant what, in order to end hostilities it had agreed to grant, those hostilities resumed. But not okay for a woman who iho has a "right" to remove a zygote from her own body free of state intrusion to choose a safe medical abortion? The problem here is that the woman actually aims to harm the innocent child. She, unlike the US in Iraq, actually hopes to destroy an innocent person, to get rid of it because she somehow perceives it as an impediment to her personal goals. It is pre-meditated murder. The U.S. aims to acquire its right while sparing the six-year-old. On the other hand, inherent to the woman’s exploiting her “right” is the murder of an innocent child. It was quite possible for America to acquire its goals without the destruction of anyone. It is absolutely impossible for the woman to acquire her goal of an abortion without the murder of a child. Kind of shaky! Not in the least. A question: Is one a "murderer" only if one has an abortion, or even if one merely supports a pro-choicer in the election. If one willingly enables those who murder, one is a willing accomplice in murder. Do you consider that a vote for Kerry makes me and other Kerry voters (who know his position on choice) murderers? If you vote for Kerry, you will be a willing accomplice, with him, in murder, since you enable one who enables others to commit murder. PROLIES has called me a murderer many times based not on my ever having had an abortion, but on my support of pro-choice candidates. Are you in agreement? Undoubtedly Prolife was not using technical language here, but was pointing out your profound moral culpability regarding the millions of murders that have taken place because of your support of abortion. You may not have directly had an abortion, but you made them possible. The blood of the children still cry from the earth against you for their murders. You will pay with your soul for them.