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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (229807)	4/19/2005 1:23:35 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (4) \| Respond to of 1573718

Like I said before, no expectant mother ever refers to her unborn child as a "fetus." Replace the the term 'expectant mother' with 'accidentally pregnant woman', and your statement is no longer accurate. Regardless, its immaterial. Call things what they are - a fetus in the womb is not the same thing as a child which has been delivered from the womb. You do agree with that statement, don't you? So it's legal; therefore, it's moral. It's immoral for you to dictate your morality to others. It denies them their freedom, and self actualization. P.S. - Scott Peterson was convicted of double homicide. That in itself should tell you how ambiguous the law is with regard to the rights of the unborn. That's interesting, I did not know that. Is it because she was ~8 months pregnant, and abortions after some point ARE illegal?