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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jttmab who wrote (166702)	7/22/2005 1:33:47 AM
From: Lazarus_Long	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

Seems an unusual logic. Medical advances made the procedure safer therefore it was outlawed. Seems pretty weird to me too. :-) Heart transplants are safer now, is someone moving to ban them? DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS! :-) Maybe if we encouraged back alley coat hanger abortions the right would be happier. I believe just that is their goal. Strange, isn't it, that the fact that NOT having safe abortion available had a price in lives has been conveniently forgotten? What is the compelling interest of the state in the murder of one private citizen by another? A fetus is not a private citizen. See Roe v. Wade [which addresses that point] and references to the Constitution ....throw in Aquinas for the Christians and the Old Testament for Christians and Jews. Maybe you ought to read Roe v. Wade. But the RR says both you and Roe v. Wade got it wrong and abortion IS murder. It's that belief that leads to the rest of the trouble. Most abortions do not involve danger to the life of the mother and you know it. I didn't say life of the mother, I said health of the mother. But there still is no demonstrated compelling interest of the State. There is if that is a human being you're killing. The RR says it is.