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: TimF who wrote (229856)	4/19/2005 1:44:00 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573812

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. Thank you. And I would say that the latter three (newborn baby, teenager and 80 year old) are a lot different from the fetus in the womb. A primary difference is the latter three are capable of surviving independently, while the fetus requires the mother's body. This is probably the main point that makes me believe if the mother doesn't want the fetus inside her, she is morally OK in removing it. 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. So....why did he get convicted of two murders? If a pregnant woman gets killed, is it always double murder??

To: TimF who wrote (229856)	4/19/2005 7:37:16 AM
From: Taro	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573812

Once again because I have posted this before, how could ScottP be found guilty of double murder when one of his two alleged victims were a fetus, albeit 8 months "old"? While at the same time his wife could have chosen to abort same fetus legally at any time prior to the eventual birth. Something is wrong here and IMO cannot be explained in any logical way. I know Ted disagreed vehemently with me here but than again, he didn't even pretend to apply logic to his stance. Please note that my personal opinion on free choice or not has no bearing whatsoever on the point I am trying to make above. Taro