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 : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cindy B. who wrote (15774)	3/3/2005 2:57:44 PM
From: Bucky Katt	Respond to of 20773

Excellent post!

To: Cindy B. who wrote (15774)	3/3/2005 3:05:23 PM
From: epicure	Respond to of 20773

I'm curious, would you support increased state aid to people who would be having children instead of abortions if abortion was not legal? Wealthy people will always be able to shop for abortions outside the country, but the poor are always with us. So, would you be interested in paying more taxes to support children? Even adoption won't solve all our problems- since many children are not as desirable (white and in perfect health)- so our foster care system would need to increase- along with attendant problems. You may be aware that the systems in all states are already overloaded as it is, we do not have enough caseworkers monitoring children. Would you support (with your tax dollars) a dramatic extension of the system? BTW- One can be both pro choice and anti death penalty- and be so without any contradiction. I am anti death penalty because I do not want the state in the business of deciding who lives and who dies- I think that power is too great for the state to have, because it threatens all of us. A mother's decision over her unborn child does not have such potential repercussions for the freedom of us already born folks, and our rights, and has nothing to do with onerous state fiats over life and death.

To: Cindy B. who wrote (15774)	3/3/2005 3:07:56 PM
From: Raymond Duray	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

Well, at least you didn't make the insane argument that the U.S. has lost 30,000,000 Christian soldiers since Roe v. Wade. :( It is tremendously disappointing to think that women are so callous about the fate of the mother due to an unwanted and most likely unaffordable pregnancy. What about social responsibility, Cindy? Doesn't society have a right to expect that women who have an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy have a social obligation to avoid creating the social woes caused by poverty, improper parenting and unaffordable offspring? And how in the world can anyone expect to be called sane when they are arguing for bringing unwanted children into a world that is suffering perpetual war because of overpopulation and resource shortages? If people were really pro-life, they'd worry more about the 35,000 infants and toddlers who die every day because of nutritional deficiencies across the planet, and worry a whole lot less about the private affairs of a woman who is attempting to do the socially responsible thing by ending an unwanted pregnancy. As the saying goes, if you don't like abortion, don't have one. That's your right in a democratic society. But I don't think you are being in any way democratic or decent by demanding that a young woman sacrifice her life because of a surprise development in her uterus. And for gosh sakes, Cindy, if staring at POCs offends you, stop it! You remind me of the damn Puritans who rail against all the pornographic materials on TV and in the movies, and then run websites featuring as much of this material as they can find.

To: Cindy B. who wrote (15774)	3/3/2005 10:30:36 PM
From: tsigprofit	Respond to of 20773

Cindy, I appreciate your posting, and your strong feelings coming from your experience. I think you have a right to feel as you do. I don't say abortion is a good thing. I believe that we should do much more to prevent unwanted pregnancies. It's a moral question, and I don't have all the answers. For me, to answer your questions below: 1. No, I believe the fully formed human being carrying the fetus should have more rights and decision making power over her own body than the fetus. 2. Someone has to make the decision. For me, I would want that person to be the female carrying the embryo or fetus. Not the state. 3. Abortion is not the same as the death penalty. Although I acknowledge your experience, the fact is that many times the fetus is not fully developed as in your examples. What about the morning after pill? Surely you'll agree that a real embryo of several days or weeks does not have the same rights as a fully formed, living human of 20, 30, 40 years of age? No, terminating this stage embryo, or a fetus before 3 months to me is nothing like executing a fully formed human of 15 years of age (a real child), 20, 30, 50, etc. These are hard questions, and I don't have the answers. Could I do it if I were a woman - maybe not - but it is not my right to tell women who have a real dilemma that I know better than them. And, it is certainly not the State's right to impose one view that has been in the minority in this country for over 25 years on a woman in that situation. JMHO, Thanks for your post. t >> When you say that you think abortion should be the choice of the woman, does that include the unborn woman or just her mother? Why should someone be able to decide an innocent person can be killed because they're not wanted? You say in your next post that you don't believe in the death penalty. Abortion is the death penalty for an unborn child. I used to think abortion should be legal but would never have one myself. That is until I became a Histologist and worked the the Pathology Department of 2 hospitals that committed abortions.