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: Elroy who wrote (229854)	4/19/2005 1:28:50 AM
From: TimF	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 1573727

a fetus in the womb is not the same thing as a child which has been delivered from the womb Depends on what you mean by "the same thing". They are not identical to each other, nor is either identical to a teenager or an 80 year old, but in each of these examples you have a human life at different stages of development in that sense they are the same thing. That's interesting, I did not know that. Is it because she was ~8 months pregnant, and abortions after some point ARE illegal? No abortions in the third trimester can be regulated, but any regulation has to allow abortion for reasons of the health of the mother, and health has been interpreted so broadly that there in effect you can not outlaw abortion at any point in a pregnancy. Tim

To: Elroy who wrote (229854)	4/19/2005 8:02:49 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573727

"Is it because she was ~8 months pregnant, and abortions after some point ARE illegal?" She was due to deliver in a few days. I don't know if aborting essentially at time of delivery is legal in California or not... I suspect not. Most states out law abortion after the point of viability, although the definition of that point might vary a lot, I am dubious if it doesn't include the week of delivery.

To: Elroy who wrote (229854)	4/19/2005 9:59:52 AM
From: SilentZ	Respond to of 1573727

>That's interesting, I did not know that. Is it because she was ~8 months pregnant, and abortions after some point ARE illegal? This was a new thing... a deliberately pushed precedent, I'm pretty sure. -Z

To: Elroy who wrote (229854)	4/19/2005 12:02:05 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573727

Elroy, Replace the the term 'expectant mother' with 'accidentally pregnant woman', and your statement is no longer accurate. Tell me the biological difference between the "fetus" of an "accidentally pregnant woman," and the unborn child of an expectant mother. Why should one be considered a life while the other be considered "part of a woman's body"? Just because the mother said so? Lots of scary implications of defining life based merely on what people think is convenient for them. It's immoral for you to dictate your morality to others. It denies them their freedom, and self actualization. By that very statement, you are dictating your own morals to me. That's interesting, I did not know that. Is it because she was ~8 months pregnant, and abortions after some point ARE illegal? I don't know if partial birth abortions in California are illegal or not. I doubt it. Tenchusatsu